On the Precepts of the Church

“…Among the rights divinely attributed to the Church, this certainly is one: to acquire any goods and other civil revenues, without any dependence upon any external authority, and freely to administer them.

“That right was conferred by God upon the Church so that she might provide more securely and stably both for the worship owed to the Divinity, for the support of her ministers, and, finally, for works of charity. Indeed, for the attainment of this end she can also, by her own authority, impose upon the faithful those monetary assessments which she herself shall judge necessary. Therefore, a civil law which, in its own name, intrudes itself into the goods and revenues of the Church so as to dispose of them at pleasure, and exempts the faithful from paying monetary assessments sanctioned by ecclesiastical law, directly opposes divine law and wrongfully attributes to itself a power which it lacks.

“…For these reasons that same civil law issued in Italy is of no force; and the conscience of the faithful remains bound to pay tithes as before.

“The Holy See gave a declaration equal to this as far back as the year 1853, when the Subalpine Kingdom abolished tithes on the island of Sardinia (Acta Pii IX, vol. 2, p. 335); just as the Supreme Pontiff Alexander III, writing to the Bishop of Vercelli, declared altogether null the letters of the emperor by which exemption from paying tithes was granted (title On Tithes, etc., ch. 25).

“Wherefore, even if that civil law had assigned compensation equal to the tithes taken away and, for that reason, had brought no detriment to the Church in a useful matter, it nevertheless would have done injury to her by intruding itself into her affairs and rights without any dependence upon the supreme authority which the Church herself received from God….” Sacred Penitentiary, 25 August 1887.

“1. First of all, the Ordinaries, in whatever ways they shall judge opportune, are to teach the faithful that the right of receiving tithes could in no way have been taken from the Church by the civil power, and therefore that the faithful are altogether bound to pay them no differently than before, and that no one can be freed from a burden and obligation of this kind except by ecclesiastical authority alone.

“2. Therefore, so that an easier way may lie open to the faithful for consulting their consciences and freeing themselves perpetually from the burden of paying tithes, the same Ordinaries shall exhort them to seek admission to a just redemption of the tithes, or even, where the case permits, to an equitable composition concerning them. For this purpose, by special and express Apostolic authority, the Sacred Penitentiary, by the tenor of these letters, grants to all local Ordinaries in Italy the necessary and opportune faculties, to be valid for five years only.

“3. Once the redemption or composition of the tithes has been made, their price—determined by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries according to the particular circumstances of each case—since it stands in place of the principal of the tithes, is to be placed in a secure, honorable, and productive investment; but the fruits are to be applied to the benefices or pious places which suffered the loss.

“4. Those who have neither redeemed the tithes nor made any composition concerning them, and who have been unwilling to pay them in full to the cathedral or to any other churches or persons to whom they are lawfully owed, are not to be absolved unless full restitution has followed (Council of Trent, sess. 25, On Reformation, ch. 12), saving, however, the rules handed down by approved authors concerning those who labor under need or poverty.

“5. The Ordinaries are furthermore to know that it is tolerated that either they themselves, or parish priests and others whose interest is involved, petition the government for compensation for the damage inflicted upon them; yet in such a way that nothing is contained in a petition of this kind which could be taken to prove that the power of disposing of tithes belongs to the secular authority, and it is to be expressly signified that compensation is sought solely under the title of lawful indemnification.” Sacred Penitentiary, 2 September 1887.

“The obligation of paying tithes still persists, notwithstanding the abolition decreed by civil law, since the latter is by no means competent to decree those things which pertain to the Church.” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 November 1902; 8 March 1898; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 63. Cf. no. 1331.

“73. The proposition declaring that the institution of new feasts took its origin from neglect in observing the old ones and from false notions of the nature and end of those same solemnities: false, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Church, favoring the reproaches of heretics against feast days celebrated by the Church. — 74. The deliberation of the Synod concerning transferring to Sunday feasts instituted throughout the year, and this by reason of a right which it declares itself persuaded belongs to the bishop over ecclesiastical discipline in relation to merely spiritual matters; and therefore also of abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on days on which, by the ancient law of the Church, that precept still remains in force; and also in that which it adds concerning transferring by episcopal authority to Advent the fasts to be observed throughout the year by precept of the Church—insofar as it asserts that it is lawful for a bishop by his own right to transfer the days prescribed by the Church for celebrating feasts or fasts, or to abrogate the precept introduced of hearing Mass: a false proposition, injurious to the right of General Councils and Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favoring schism.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

Whether, besides the obligation of abstaining from servile works and of hearing Mass, the liturgical solemnity of suppressed or transferred feasts has also been removed? — Resp. “With respect to the choir and the ecclesiastical functions customarily performed, absolutely nothing is to be altered in relation to feasts on which the people have been released from the precept of hearing Mass, and chant was instituted for honoring God, not for attracting the people.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 October 1818, Alife, response to 2. Except: unless, when the Mass and Office have been transferred, the liturgical solemnity is also judged to have been transferred, ibid.

“The universal Church throughout the world knows that it belongs to the supreme solicitude of the Roman Pontiff to direct the Lord’s flock to eternal salvation and so to unfold the apostolic precepts that the faithful may run in the way of the commandments and be able happily to arrive at blessedness.

“1. For from the report of very many of Our Venerable Brethren, archbishops and bishops constituted throughout various regions, it has come to Us that the multitude of feasts throughout their individual dioceses and provinces has so increased, devotion and custom introducing new ones daily, that many already seem to doubt which are to be observed by precept and which by the free will of each person, while the fervor of piety grows cold because of their excessive number. Indeed, the frequent cry of the poor also ascends to Us, complaining that this same multitude is very harmful to them because of the necessity of obtaining their daily sustenance by their labors; and, what is greatly to be lamented, with great sorrow of Our soul We have learned that the enemy has very often contrived so much against holy things that peoples do not use this multitude for edification and for praising God in the churches, but do not fear frequently to abuse it for idleness, vanities, and vices, so that the enemy man has in the course of time corrupted those things which were instituted principally for glorifying the Divine Majesty and has converted them into a great offense against Him and a grave loss of souls. Wherefore the said Venerable Brethren, archbishops and bishops, have caused humble supplication to be made to Us that, in the aforesaid matters, from the fullness of Apostolic power We might enter upon some suitable arrangement.

“2. Therefore We, wishing from the duty of the pastoral office to make provision and henceforth to establish a definite precept concerning the sanctification of feasts, following the ancient custom of the Church in this matter, frequent consultations first having been held by learned and pious men whom We specially deputed for this purpose, as the gravity of the matter seemed to demand, by Our own motion, certain knowledge, and mature deliberation, and from the aforesaid fullness of Apostolic power, by this Constitution to remain perpetually in force, also with the vote of Our Venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church placed over sacred rites, by Apostolic authority decree and declare that only the days written below are to be observed as feasts by precept: namely, those which venerable antiquity consecrated from the beginning, or the custom of the universal Church approved, or the unanimous piety of all nations venerates: namely, the Sundays of the whole year; the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Circumcision; the Epiphany; the Resurrection, together with the two following weekdays; the Most Holy Trinity; the solemnity of the Body of Christ; and the Finding of the Holy Cross; also the Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God; the Dedication of Saint Michael the Archangel; the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist; Saints Peter and Paul; Saint Andrew; Saint James; Saint John; Saint Thomas; Saints Philip and James; Saint Bartholomew; Saint Matthew; Saints Simon and Jude; and Saint Matthias, Apostles of Christ the Lord; likewise Saint Stephen the Protomartyr; the Holy Innocents; Saint Lawrence the Martyr; Saint Sylvester, Pope and Confessor; Saint Joseph, Confessor, and Saint Anne, respectively the spouse and mother of the Mother of God; the solemnity of All Saints; and one of the principal Patrons in any kingdom or province, and likewise another principal Patron in any city, town, or village where it happens that these Patrons are held and venerated.

“3. By the said authority and tenor of these presents, We also perpetually decree and declare that the faithful are by no means bound by precept to the observance of the remaining days which hitherto, whether in the universal Church or in any nation or kingdom, province, diocese, or place, in whatever manner or from devotion, the Christian faithful celebrated as festive. But lest it happen that feast days are again multiplied hereafter by local Ordinaries through the excessive facility of some or the importunity of peoples, We admonish the same Ordinaries in the Lord that, for preserving ecclesiastical uniformity everywhere, henceforth and for all future times they take care to abstain from imposing new feasts under precept. But so that the things expressed above may be observed with the more fervent veneration and devotion which is fitting, We recall to the memory of the same Ordinaries the observance of the ancient canons in granting permissions to work on feast days. These permissions, indeed, are to be granted in no other way than according to the form of the aforesaid canons, as stated above, and only gratuitously, freely, and without any price or agreement whatever, directly or indirectly, under even graver penalties to be inflicted at Our discretion and that of Our successors. Nevertheless, by this Our Constitution We do not intend to change in any respect the days which are court holidays, which for this purpose We leave in the same state and limits in which they were before its promulgation….” Urban VIII, 15 September 1641, D. nos. 812, 844. Cf. chapter Conquestus 5, On Holidays.

“The nature of the office of the most sacred apostolate divinely entrusted to Us demands that, striving to enlarge on earth, after the manner of many Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors, the veneration and worship of the most glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God, whose conception announced joy to the whole world, We should continually endeavor, insofar as it is granted to Us from on high, to merit the most powerful aid, amid so many and such great necessities by which We are pressed in the Christian commonwealth and the Catholic Church, of her who, exalted above the choirs of angels, as a diligent intercessor for the Christian people continually intercedes in heaven before Him whom she bore. Therefore, moved by Our sincere devotion toward that same most august Queen of Heaven, Our patroness and advocate, by Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents We decree, command, and ordain that henceforth everywhere on earth the feast of the Conception of the same Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary is to be comprehended among the other feasts of precept by all and each of the Christian faithful of either sex. Notwithstanding, etc.” Clement XI, 6 December 1708.

“The Fathers assembled in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, greatly desiring that uniformity be introduced in the observance of feasts, and maturely weighing the difficulties under which the faithful labor within the federated states, judged that supplication should be made:

“1. That, in view of the peculiar circumstances of Catholics dwelling in these regions, it might graciously be declared by Apostolic authority that, throughout all the dioceses of the federated states of North America, all and only the following feast days are to be observed by the precept of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Feast of All Saints. For, by reason of affairs and times, the observance of these six feast days is more happily hoped for. 2. With respect to the other feast days which, besides the six mentioned above, are still of precept in certain places: that by Apostolic benignity the faithful of those same places indeed be released from the obligation of hearing Mass and abstaining from works, but without those same feast days being suppressed with respect to devotion and external solemnity. 3. With respect to the feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ: that it may graciously please him to grant that the solemnity of that feast be transferred to the Sunday immediately following, according to the norm of the indult granted to the dioceses of the United States of North America with respect to the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, as is contained in the letters of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the Archbishop of Baltimore, 19 December 1840.

“The Holy Office responded on 25 November 1885: Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy Father for the favor according to the petitions…. And His Holiness…graciously deigned to assent, according to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation, to the petitions of the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.”

The feast of Saint Joseph on 19 March is again to be observed by precept in Spain and in the regions subject to it. Leo XIII, Brief Quod paucis, 28 January 1890.

In the Neapolitan provinces: “Besides all the Sundays throughout the year, the following feasts are to be retained, namely: the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the Epiphany of the Lord; the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Annunciation of the same Blessed Virgin; Saint Joseph, Patron; the Ascension of the Lord into Heaven; the Nativity of the same Blessed Virgin Mary; and the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But for the city of Naples alone, the feasts of Saint Januarius and Saint Anthony of Padua are to be retained; and for the city of Palermo, the feast of Saint Rosalia, Virgin. But the feasts of the principal Patrons of individual cities, towns, and places, to which the precept of abstaining from servile works is attached, are to be transferred, together with the respective celebration of their Offices and Masses, to the Sunday immediately following.” Pius VII, Brief Paternae caritati, 10 April 1818. — To these, however, are to be added: the feast of the Visitation, Gregory XVI, Brief Cum nobis, 30 December 1835; the feast of the Apparition of Saint Michael the Archangel; the feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and the principal Patrons of each place, on their proper day, if the Ordinaries with their Chapters shall so judge. Pius VII, Brief Per Apostolicas, 15 October 1818. — M. E., vol. 9, part 2, p. 41 ff.; D. nos. 2589, 2590.

In the provinces of upper Italy: “By Our Apostolic authority We command and decree that the nineteenth day of the month of March, sacred to the remembrance of the Most Blessed Patriarch Joseph, is duly to be numbered among the feast days in all and each of the regions of Piedmont, Liguria, Sardinia, and also Lombardy. Therefore all Christians are bound by precept both to be present at the holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to abstain from those works which are customarily called servile.” Leo XIII, Brief Quod erat, 3 March 1891; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 192.

“Every faithful person of either sex, after having arrived at the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins by himself, at least once a year, to his own priest, and shall strive according to his powers to fulfill the penance imposed upon him, reverently receiving at least at Easter the Sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps, on the counsel of his own priest, for some reasonable cause he shall judge that he ought to abstain from receiving it for a time; otherwise, while living he is to be barred from entry into the church, and when dying he is to lack Christian burial.” Fourth Lateran Council, Decrees, chapter 21.

“If anyone shall deny that all the faithful are bound every year, at least at Easter, to communicate according to the precept of Mother Church, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, sess. 13, canon 9.

“13. One satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a religious presented to the bishop but unjustly rejected by him. — 14. One who makes a confession voluntarily invalid satisfies the precept of the Church.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“35. The precept of annual Communion is satisfied by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Since the mayor of Naples had prescribed that all Neapolitan clocks, with the exception of certain private ones, in indicating noon should take Roman mean time as their rule, it happens that midnight differs from the true time not only by reason of mean time but also by reason of the different meridian of each city, so that the difference sometimes exceeds a quarter of an hour by no slight amount. These things being considered, can the faithful at Naples, in observing the natural fast and other obligations of the Church, follow clocks indicating the hours according to Roman mean time, or ought they rather to follow those clocks which mark true Neapolitan time? — Resp. To the first part, affirmatively; to the second, negatively.” Sacred Penitentiary, 18 June 1873; Holy Office, 9 May 1892; 9 August 1899.

“Whether, where clocks adjusted to mean time are used, one is to stand by them both for fulfilling the burden of the Divine Office and for observing the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? — Resp. The faithful can follow mean time in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office, but are not bound to do so.” Sacred Penitentiary, 29 November 1882.

“According to a law very recently enacted, throughout the entire German Empire from the beginning of April of the current year, one and the same time, without regard to the mean time or meridian of the diverse regions of the Empire, is to be observed in counting the hours, and the public clocks display it. Hence it happens that within the boundaries of this diocese the legal reckoning of the hours exceeds the local mean time by the space of half an hour. Can clerics follow legal time in discharging the Divine Office, both by privately anticipating Matins and by reciting Vespers? — Resp. Affirmatively.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 22 July 1893.

“Whether, when either by the Bull of the Crusade or for some other cause an indult is granted for the use of melted lard (commonly called strutto) solely under the title of condiment, those who are bound to fast may lawfully use that condiment even in the evening refection? — Resp. Those who are bound to fast can lawfully use, even in the evening refection, condiments permitted in the indult, because by force of the indult they take the place of oil, provided that no restriction is placed in the indult that those condiments may be used at the one meal.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 January 1834.

“Whether on Fridays and Saturdays, on which condiments commonly called di grasso are permitted, meat broth can be used? — Resp. Under the terms condimenti di grasso, broth from cooked meat is not comprehended.” Sacred Penitentiary, 30 January 1866. — It is nevertheless tolerated where there is a custom. Holy Office, 20 January 1895.

“Whether the expression condiments from fat, used in the granting of indults for Lent and for condiment during the year, should be understood of fat from any animal whatsoever? — Resp. Affirmatively.” Holy Office, 25 March 1895.

“Whether on days consecrated to fasting, on which the use of condiments from fat is permitted by Apostolic favor, it is also lawful to use butter by way of condiment? — Resp. Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy Father for the favor. His Holiness graciously deigned to grant the favor.” Holy Office, 13 May 1896.

“Whether it is lawful to use margarine by way of food or condiment on those days on which the use of meat or fat from meat is unlawful, while the use of butter remains lawful? — Resp. Affirmatively, after the matter was reported to the Most Holy Father.” Holy Office, 6 September 1899.

“1. On days on which seasoning with rendered fat and lard is permitted, can one who uses the lard itself to season soup, polenta, an omelet, etc., freely eat those little pieces of lard which remain after they have been fried to extract the fat? — 2. On days of strict abstinence, on which eggs are forbidden, may vegetables, e.g., artichokes, be lightly moistened with beaten egg? — 3. On days of strict abstinence is it lawful to use oil in which meat has been fried, or at least is this lawful on days of simple abstinence? — Resp. To 1. Affirmatively, provided that they continue to be part of the condiment. — To 2. A condiment from eggs, when eggs are forbidden, is not lawful. — To 3. Those who act thus are not to be disturbed.” Sacred Penitentiary, 17 November 1897. Cf. no. 1573.

“Whether the aquatic bird named the coot (commonly folaga) is to be reckoned among fishes, and whether it is lawful to eat it on those days on which meats are forbidden? — The religious of the Order of Minims of Saint Francis of Paola, to whom meats are altogether forbidden, in order to remove the perplexity by which their consciences were troubled concerning this matter, presented a supplication to Pius VII that it might be granted to them to be able freely to use that food. Through the Congregation of Regular Discipline, on 22 February 1804, the Most Holy Father, provided that the things narrated were true, graciously granted the favor according to the petition, notwithstanding the Constitutions of the Order and all other things.”

“Can hartshorn softened in water, seasoned with sugar, and made into a jelly be regarded as Lenten food? — Resp. The Most Holy Father is to be consulted for a dispensation insofar as it may be necessary. The Most Holy Father granted it.” Holy Office of the Propagation of the Faith, 21 September 1843, C. 2071.

“In the year 1853, the Most Illustrious Bishops of Belgium petitioned the Holy See that it might deign to remove the law by which the eating of meat on Saturday is prohibited. The Holy See did not abrogate that law, but deigned to grant the Most Illustrious Bishops of Belgium the faculty of dispensing from it those who sought a dispensation. Whether, once a dispensation has been obtained, it is lawful for those traveling outside Belgium to eat meat in places in which that law remains in force? — Resp. Negatively.” Holy Office, 10 January 1855.

In many dioceses of Italy also, an indult concerning abstinence on Saturday is presently in force. Cf. the Indult for the City of Rome, no. 1626.

“…The Most Holy Father, …in view of the most grave causes adduced, wishing to meet the necessities and anxieties of souls, while preserving the ecclesiastical law of fasting and abstinence, and saving the excuses from that same law which remain admitted by the common law according to the rules of approved authors, as well as the special indults hitherto imparted to the individual ecclesiastical provinces and still in force for as long as they shall endure, resolved to grant for ten years, as he does grant, to all the Ordinaries of Latin America a faculty, subdelegable to parish priests, confessors, and other ecclesiastical men, of dispensing at their discretion each year, mention of the Apostolic delegation having been made, the faithful who request it—including religious of either sex, but with the consent of their ecclesiastical superiors—from the law of fasting and abstinence, provided that:

“1. The law of fasting without abstinence from meat is observed on the Fridays of Advent and the Wednesdays of Lent.

“2. The law of fasting and abstinence from meat is observed on Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of Lent, and Thursday of Holy Week.

“But on days of fasting it will always be lawful for everyone, even regulars, although they have not sought a special dispensation, to use eggs and dairy products at the evening collation.

“3. Abstinence from meat without fasting is observed on the four vigils of the feasts of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, the Assumption into Heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

“4. In the individual regions, the conditions concerning the recitation of prayers and the distribution and destination of alms which have hitherto customarily been observed in the concession of pontifical indults are to be observed.

“But parish priests and other priests subdelegated by the bishops are forbidden to ask for or accept anything else on the occasion of the dispensations imparted by them.

“The privileges of Latin America granted in the Constitution Trans Oceanum of 18 April 1897 nevertheless remain firm….

“Notwithstanding anything whatsoever to the contrary.” Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 6 July 1899. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 33, p. 511.

“1. Is it lawful for Greeks dwelling at Rome—at least for the avoidance of scandal—to eat meat on Saturday? — 2. Is it lawful for Greeks to have Latins in their service and to give them meat to eat on Saturday? — 3. Is it lawful for Greeks on the aforesaid day to offer meat to be eaten by Latin children and youths who are not attached to their service? — Resp. To 1. It is not lawful, and the Instruction of Clement VIII is to be observed, in which it is contained thus: The use of meat on Saturday is to be tolerated among the Greeks, where it can be done without scandal, yet only in their own places and among themselves. — To 2 and 3. Latin servants of Greeks are bound to observe the Latin rite, and therefore the Greeks sin by setting forbidden foods before their servants at a time when they ought to abstain from them.” Holy Office, 13 March 1727, C. 2050.

“Whether Greek priests in the Archdiocese of Rossano can compel persons living according to the Greek rite to the observance of the fasts and vigils of the Latin Church? — Resp. It is not lawful for private persons who have a Greek parish to observe, contrary to their own rite, the fasts and vigils of the Latins while omitting the fasts of the Greek rite. Nevertheless, it is lawful, provided that it is not compelled to do so, for the whole community, or for the greater part of the laity united with the parish priests and presbyters, to observe fasts and vigils in the manner of the Latins; nor does it follow from this that the community has passed over to the Latin rite.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 March 1760, C. 2055.

“With respect to Ordinations, it suffices to observe the fasts of the Ember Days; for Ordinations outside the Ember Days carry no obligation of fasting. — With respect to the Consecrations of Churches, the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Mechelen, 29 July 1780, no. 2519, response to 1, is to be observed, which is as follows: The fast prescribed in the Roman Pontifical is of strict obligation for the consecrating bishop and only for those who request that a church be consecrated for them; and that 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.

“The Most Eminent Fathers directed their attention to the words which are read in no. 27 of Formulas I and II and in no. 17 of Formula III, namely: Of dispensing, when it shall seem expedient, concerning the eating of meat, eggs, and dairy products during times of fasting and Lent; and they decreed that henceforth they were to be modified by adding after the word Of dispensing the following: not, however, by a general indult, but in particular cases.” Holy Office, 17 March 1883.

“Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy Father that he may deign to grant to bishops and other local Ordinaries the faculty of anticipating, on a day agreeable to themselves, and, for the most grave causes, even of dispensing from the law of fasting and abstinence whenever the feast, to be observed under both precepts, of a principal Patron or Titular, or some other solemn feast likewise to be celebrated with a great concourse of the people, falls upon Fridays or Saturdays during the year, except during the time of Lent, the Ember Days, and the vigils consecrated to fasting during the year; and that they may use the same power of anticipating or, for the most grave causes, even dispensing, for days on which extraordinary fairs are held, likewise with a great concourse of the people. — His Holiness ratified and confirmed the present decree and granted and attributed to all and each of the local Ordinaries, for all future times, the faculty in question, mention, however, of the Apostolic dispensation being made in the individual cases.” Holy Office, 5 December 1894.

“1. In order that a bishop may be able to dispense according to the tenor of the decree of 5 December 1894, is it necessary that the feast be celebrated with a great concourse of the people? — 2. Can a bishop dispense only when there is question of feasts of double precept, or also when there is question of another feast or another Catholic solemnity, e.g., centenaries, pilgrimages, and the like? — 3. How is a great concourse of the people to be understood: of people from elsewhere, or also of those of the same city or place? — 4. Can there be assigned among the most grave causes for which a bishop can not only anticipate but also dispense the grave danger that the abstinence to be anticipated will not be observed? — 5. On the excepted days consecrated to fasting, is it forbidden to bishops only to dispense from abstinence, or also to anticipate it? — 6. For a reasonable cause, can a bishop commit to parish priests the determination of the day on which abstinence ought to be anticipated? — Resp. To 1. Affirmatively. — To 2. Negatively to the first part; affirmatively to the second, provided that there is a great concourse of the people. — To 3. All things being considered, it can also be understood of a concourse of the city or place, after the matter was reported to the Most Holy Father. — To 4. Affirmatively, provided that the danger is general. — To 5. Affirmatively; that is, both are forbidden to bishops. — To 6. Affirmatively.” Holy Office, 18 March 1896.

“Whether Ordinaries, by force of the decree of 5 December 1894, can anticipate, or even for the most grave causes dispense from, the law of fasting and abstinence on the Fridays and Saturdays of Advent? — Resp. Negatively.” Holy Office, 15 December 1897.

“That a man ought not to fast or pray after he has attained a degree of perfection of this kind—namely, that he can advance no further in grace—because then sensuality is so perfectly subject to spirit and reason that a man can freely grant to the body whatever pleases it.” Condemned as an error in Clement V, Ad nostrum 3, On Heretics.

“23. One who breaks a fast of the Church to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he does this from contempt or disobedience, namely, because he does not wish to subject himself to the precept.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Whether it can be permitted…that in the morning on days of fasting, coffee or chocolate with a morsel of bread be taken in a small quantity? — Resp. Those who follow such a practice are not to be disturbed.” Sacred Penitentiary, 21 November 1843.

“29. On a day of fasting, one who several times eats a small amount does not break the fast.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Can the time of the principal meal and the collation be inverted on days of fasting for some reason, e.g., studies, so that, according to the French custom, the collation is taken at eleven o’clock, but the principal meal at five o’clock in the afternoon? — Resp. They can be inverted for a reasonable cause; and let him consult approved authors.” Holy Office, 29 July 1857.

“Whether on days of fasting the time of eating can be inverted by taking the little evening refection between ten and eleven o’clock in the morning, but deferring the principal meal until four or five o’clock in the evening? On 10 January 1834 the Sacred Penitentiary judged that the response should be: If there exists some reasonable cause for the aforesaid inversion, penitents who use this custom are not to be disturbed.” Holy Office, 17 September 1862.

“32. It is not evident that the custom of not eating eggs and dairy products in Lent binds.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, 18 March 1666.

“The faithful who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast can lawfully, in Lent when an indult has been granted, eat meat or dairy products permitted by that same indult, on all the days comprehended in the indult, as often as they eat during the day.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 January 1824.

This, however, does not apply in a diocese whose bishop, by Apostolic authority, grants to the faithful that on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays of Lent they can once a day eat meat and eggs, but permits those who by reason of age or labor are not bound to fast to use eggs several times a day. Sacred Penitentiary, 27 May 1863.

“The faithful who, by reason of impaired health, are exempted from the law of fasting or of the one meal can lawfully, on those days of Lent on which the eating of meat is permitted by indult, eat meat as often as they eat during the day.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 March 1882; A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 568; vol. 1, p. 427.

“From Your Lordship’s letter of 9 February last, I was able to gather that Your Lordship would be pleased to know the reason why, to the doubt, ‘Whether those who are excused from fasting by reason of infirm health are to be equated with those who are not bound to fast by reason of age or labor, so that it is likewise lawful for them to eat meat several times a day?’ the Sacred Penitentiary responded on 27 May 1863: They are not to be equated. Now, having obtained the appropriate information concerning the matter, I am in a position to signify to you that the reason why the infirm, with respect to the quality of foods on days subject to the prohibition of the Church, are not to be equated with those who are excused from fasting by reason of age or labor is that the latter can use forbidden foods solely by force of the indult, which can undergo lesser or greater limitations, while the infirm can use forbidden foods according to the state of their health and the judgment of the physician. Thus, for example, on certain days the indult might not permit seasoning with fat, and in that case one who is dispensed from fasting by reason of age or labor must abstain from the aforesaid seasoning; but the sick person, even on the excepted days, can eat fat foods if the state of his health so requires. It seems to me that such an explanation can serve to remove the uncertainties which you mentioned to me in your aforesaid letter. — Rome, 8 March 1864. Alexander Cardinal Barnabò, Prefect.”

Seven doubts proposed to Benedict XIV and resolved by him, Letter to the Archbishop of Compostela, 10 June 1745.

“1. Whether those things which in Our aforesaid Letters in the form of a Brief are prescribed concerning the one meal and concerning foods not to be mixed are also prohibited under a grave precept? — Resp. Those granting the faculty of eating meat during a forbidden time are bound under grave sin to give those faculties only with these two conditions added: namely, of one meal in the day and of foods not being mixed. But those who use faculties of this kind are bound under grave sin to fulfill both those conditions.”

“2. Whether those to whom it has been granted to eat meat can, at the evening refection, eat that quantity of meat which is permitted to those who fast? — Resp. It is not lawful; rather, they must use that food and that portion which fasting persons of an upright and delicate conscience use.” “3. Whether those who during the time of fasting are permitted to eat meat and are bound to use one meal must observe the hour prescribed for those who fast? — Resp. It is to be observed.”

“4. What are the lawful foods which are forbidden to be joined with those which are prohibited? — Resp. The lawful foods for those to whom it is permitted to eat meat are meats themselves; the forbidden foods are fishes, and therefore both cannot be used together. Those, however, to whom only the faculty of using eggs and dairy products is given are not forbidden to eat fish.”

“5. Whether the precept concerning not mixing either kind of food also comprehends the Sundays of Lent? — Resp. It comprehends them.”

“6. Whether this law also pertains to those who by the Bull of the Crusade can eat eggs and dairy products? — Resp. Nothing has been established in Our aforementioned Apostolic Letters which concerns the gracious diploma of the Crusade. Wherefore, those who enjoy it should strictly and carefully weigh its tenor and conduct themselves according to its meaning. But let them beware lest by some empty excuse they think themselves released from the laws prescribed therein.”

“7. Whether the two precepts mentioned bind outside Lent? — Resp. Both precepts bind outside Lent: namely, that of the one meal, with the remaining laws expressed in the responses to the second and third of these questions; and the other, of not mixing lawful foods with forbidden ones, as was defined in the fourth question.”

“Whether the faithful who are dispensed from the law of abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays during the course of the year, when the obligation of fasting does not bind, can eat fish and meat together? — Resp. It is permitted.” Sacred Penitentiary, 15 February 1834.

“Whether, on days of fasting during Advent prescribed by Pius VI, dairy products nevertheless being permitted, one for whom the eating of meat is lawful because of infirmity is forbidden the mixture of meat and fish? — Resp. Affirmatively; namely, a mixture of this kind is not lawful.” Sacred Penitentiary, 8 January 1834.

“Whether the obligation of not mixing fish with meat on days of Lent reaches all who by force of an indult can eat meat, or only those who fast? — Resp. Affirmatively with respect to the first part; negatively with respect to the second. And let the decree of 24 March 1841 be given, namely, to the doubt: Whether the law of not mixing lawful and forbidden foods also concerns those who are not bound to the one meal, such as young persons before they have completed their third septennium, and others reasonably excused from it because of incapacity or labor? The Most Eminent Fathers decreed: It is not lawful.” Holy Office, 23 June 1875.

“Most Eminent Prince: Titius, being ill, needs on days of fasting not only to be refreshed by several meals but also to use meat; will he be able to use fish at the same time? It seems to me that the response should be affirmative. The Holy Office on 23 January 1875 binds to not mixing foods even those who ‘take meat by force of an indult, and not only those who fast’; it revokes the Decree of 24 March 1841, where “even those who are excused from the one meal because of incapacity or labor eat meat by force of an indult and consequently are bound not to mix foods.” It does not speak of those who eat meat because of illness. From these things the Holy Office allows it to be supposed, or permits it to be believed, that those who eat meat not by force of an indult are not bound not to mix foods. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. 2, tract 7, no. 26 (2nd ed., p. 797); Génicot (Professor at Louvain), vol. 1, p. 444 (2nd ed.); D’Annibale, vol. 3, no. 138 (3rd ed.); and Bucceroni, Institutions, vol. 1, no. 1607, have expounded this opinion.

“Resp. The petitioner can follow with a safe conscience the opinion of the authors whom he cites.” Sacred Penitentiary, 9 January 1899.

“Whether, by the Apostolic indult issued through the ministry of the Holy Office on 30 January of the current year, by which the faculty of releasing the faithful from the law of abstinence and fasting is entrusted to the Ordinaries, the prohibition against mixing foods has also been removed? — Resp. Negatively; but during Lent and the fasts throughout the year, the mixing of forbidden and permitted foods in the same meal is prohibited.” Holy Office, 28 February 1890.

“Whether little fish dried in salt, or anchovies (in Italian acciughe, alici), herrings (in Italian aringhe), and other things similar to these, are comprehended under the law forbidding mixture with meat; or whether they can be mixed by way of a condiment for another dish? — Resp. Fish dried in salt are forbidden to be mixed with meat whenever the mixture of meat and fish is forbidden.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 January 1834.

“Whether during a fast it is lawful for one to whom the eating of meat is lawful to mix with it marine shellfish, which are improperly called fruits of the sea but are commonly reckoned as fish, that is, oysters (in Italian ostriche) and crustaceans (gamberi, granchi)? — Resp. Marine shellfish, which are improperly called fruits of the sea but are commonly reckoned as fish, are forbidden to be mixed with meat whenever the mixture of meat and fish is prohibited.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 January 1834.

“Whether those dispensed from the law of abstinence from meat can, on days on which the obligation of fasting binds, for the sake of health eat only broth seasoned with meat and otherwise eat fasting foods—as do others who are able to eat fish—in order to observe the law of abstinence insofar as possible? — Resp. Affirmatively, the things set forth having been attentively considered.” Sacred Penitentiary, 8 February 1828.

“Whether, by force of the law which prohibits eating meat and fish together, it is equally prohibited to eat meat and some dish seasoned with fish sauce? — Resp. Negatively.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 June 1880.

“Whether during the time of fasting it is lawful to mix meat with legumes? — Resp. It is beyond doubt that meat can be mixed with any kinds of legumes.” Sacred Penitentiary, 8 February 1828.

“Whether those to whom the eating of meat is lawful can use melted lard as a condiment on days on which they use only dairy products? — Resp. Affirmatively.” Sacred Penitentiary, 8 February 1828.

“30. All workmen who labor bodily in the commonwealth are excused from the obligation of fasting, nor ought they to ascertain whether their labor is compatible with fasting. — 31. All those who make a journey on horseback are absolutely excused from the precept of fasting, however they make the journey, even if the journey is not necessary and even if they complete a journey of one day.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“Whether fathers of families, when someone in the family is dispensed from the law of abstinence from meat, can extend the dispensation indiscriminately to all persons of the family? — Resp. Infirmity and any other reasonable impediment, on the advice of both physicians, but not gluttony, avarice, or, generally, the saving of expenses, can exempt from the precept of abstinence on days of abstinence.” Sacred Penitentiary, 19 January 1834.

“Whether, when a father of a family dispensed from the law of abstinence from meat during Lent cannot or does not wish to have foods of both kinds prepared, namely fasting foods and meat, his children or members of the household can eat meat? — Resp. Persons who are under the authority of a father of a family to whom a lawful faculty of eating meat has been given can be permitted to use the foods allowed to the father of the family, with the condition added that lawful and forbidden foods are not to be mixed, and that there is to be one meal a day for those who are bound to fast.” Sacred Penitentiary, 16 January 1834.

“Can children under paternal authority eat meat during a forbidden time, presupposing a faculty of this kind in their parents or in one of them; and, in the affirmative case, can the children eat meat without offense to conscience when they find themselves in the circumstance of preparing two dinners? — Resp. Negatively, speaking speculatively; but in practice the confessor is bound to judge.” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 April 1865.

“Whether, by force of the response of the Sacred Penitentiary of 16 January 1834, conceived in these words: ‘Persons who are under the authority of a father of a family to whom a lawful faculty of eating meat has been given can be permitted to use the foods allowed to the father of the family,’ etc., once the father of the family has been dispensed, the other members of the same family also ought to be understood as dispensed? — Resp. The Sacred Penitentiary has never declared that dispensations granted to the head of a family extend to the whole family; rather, it has only given directions for confessors in the practical act concerning those who are under authority and must eat foods given by their parents.”

“1. Whether the same response of the Sacred Penitentiary of 16 January 1834 is valid everywhere on earth? — 2. When in the same response it is said that permission can be given, it is asked by whom that permission is to be given and whether permission given by a simple confessor suffices? — Resp. With respect to 1, affirmatively. With respect to 2, permission given by a simple confessor suffices.” Sacred Penitentiary, 27 May 1863.

“The Sacred Penitentiary has never declared that, when a father of a family has for a lawful cause been dispensed from abstinence from meat on days of abstinence, the children placed under his authority are by that very fact dispensed; rather, it intended only to give, by way of instruction, a declaration to confessors: that they can be permitted, when just causes arising from true necessity concur, and when they cannot otherwise sustain themselves, to use the foods allowed to the father of the family, the obligation of not mixing lawful and unlawful foods always remaining firm, and that of one meal a day for those who are bound to fast.” 6 August 1860.

“The reason for the permission is not the indult of the father of the family, but the inability in which the children under paternal authority find themselves to observe the precept.” Sacred Penitentiary.

“Whenever, on any occasion whatsoever, it shall happen that a dispensation is given, whether indiscriminately to a multitude or to individuals for a lawful cause and on the advice of both physicians—provided that no certain and dangerous condition of impaired health intervenes and necessarily requires that it be done otherwise—in Lent and at other times and on days of the year on which the eating of meat, eggs, and dairy products is prohibited, by the tenor of these presents We declare and command that the one meal is to be observed by absolutely everyone, with no one excepted, and that lawful and forbidden foods are by no means to be set forth together.” Benedict XIV, Apostolic Letter In suprema, 22 August 1741.

“According to the indult which the Holiness of Our Lord has deigned to grant you, O Romans, you have the obligation of fasting on the aforesaid days in the following manner:

“1. On all days of Lent, except Sundays, food may be taken only at one meal; the two customary small refections are, however, tolerated.

“2. It is not permitted to eat meat, eggs, or dairy products, nor to use condiments of lard, rendered fat, and butter on Ash Wednesday, the Ember Days, the vigil of Saint Joseph and of the Most Holy Annunciation, and also the last three days of Holy Week.

“3. On Fridays and Saturdays not comprehended in the preceding number, eggs and dairy products may be used at dinner, and condiments of lard, rendered fat, and butter may also be used at the small evening refection.

“4. The use of meat at the one meal is permitted on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays not comprehended in number two, with the faculty of using condiments of lard, rendered fat, and butter at the small evening refection.

“5. The use of meat is permitted at every meal on all Sundays.

“6. It is a law imposed by the pontifical indult that meat and fish may not be eaten at the same meal, not even on Sundays.

“7. Whoever, by reason of infirm health, should need to eat meat on the days forbidden above must furnish himself with the physician’s certificate bearing the signature of the respective parish priest and of one of the persons listed below whom We have deputed for this purpose, and must use the faculty with every occasion of scandal removed.

“8. Those who are constrained to eat in taverns or other public places are to go where they can find a way to maintain the obligations of their conscience. It is likewise an obligation of conscience for tavern keepers, innkeepers, and hotel keepers to have abstinence foods ready on the prescribed days, so that the nourishment required by one who intends to observe the Lenten laws may not be lacking.”

“The Holiness of Our Lord Pope Pius X, benignly receiving Our petition, has deigned to grant to the population of Rome and its District—not including religious of either sex bound by a special vow—the use of condiments of lard, rendered fat, and butter on Fridays and Saturdays and on the other vigils of the coming year 1904. From this concession are excepted: the vigil of the Purification of Mary Most Holy, in view of the special vow by which Rome is bound; Ash Wednesday; the three Ember Days of Lent and the last three days of Holy Week; the vigils of Saint Joseph, the Most Holy Annunciation, Pentecost, the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, the feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the glorious Assumption of Mary Most Holy, All Saints, and the Holy Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

“The law of fasting remaining firm, the use of eggs and dairy products at the one meal is granted on the Fridays and Saturdays of Advent, but not on the three Ember Days and the vigil of the Holy Nativity.

“On days of fasting on which, as above, condiments of lard, rendered fat, and butter are permitted, they may also be used at the small refection.

“The Holy Father has furthermore authorized Us to dispense, and We do dispense, the faithful of Rome and its District from abstinence from meat on all Saturdays of the coming year 1904, except those on which the obligation of fasting occurs.

“By the express will of His Holiness, We remind the Romans of the most strict obligation of faithfully observing the law of abstinence from meat on Fridays, and We exhort them, from devotion especially to Mary Most Holy, to observe it also on Saturdays. Let those, moreover, who wish to use the indult recite at least, by way of compensation—although no obligation is imposed upon them—one third of the Marian Rosary.”

“…By Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these present letters, for twelve years only, which shall begin to run from the first Sunday of Holy Advent of the approaching year, We grant and concede that the Christian faithful of either sex dwelling in the Kingdom of the Spains and on the islands and other places, even overseas, subject to the civil dominion of Your Majesty, or journeying to that kingdom and those same islands and places, who, within the year to be reckoned in the customary manner from the customary publications of these same letters, shall voluntarily contribute the alms assessed according to the various rank and condition of those Christian faithful by the Archbishop of Toledo, substituted in the office of Commissary General and executor of these letters, and to be expended for the aforesaid pious uses, may enjoy the favors, graces, and privileges which We shall now declare. A summary of these matters is to be prepared by the aforesaid executor, which each one of the Christian faithful mentioned must receive in order that he may enjoy the privileges, favors, and graces.

“I. First, to all and each of the same Christian faithful who, being truly penitent, shall have confessed their sins within the aforesaid year and shall devoutly have received the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, or, if they are unable to receive these Sacraments, shall at least desire it with a contrite heart, We bestow and lavish a plenary indulgence and remission of all and each of their sins, such as is customarily granted to those setting out for the recovery of the Holy Land. We decree, however, that those who cannot confess their sins, even if they desire it with a contrite heart, can enjoy the aforesaid plenary indulgence only if they have otherwise confessed within the time prescribed by the Church for every faithful person and have not neglected to fulfill that precept in confidence of this Our concession. Likewise, by way of suffrage, the same indulgence shall also assist the souls of the departed for whom the Christian faithful shall have contributed from their goods the alms to be assessed by the Archbishop of Toledo and expended for the aforesaid pious uses.

“II. Furthermore, to all and each of the aforesaid Christian faithful, that during the said year they may, in churches in which it shall otherwise have been permitted in any manner to celebrate divine offices during an interdict, or in a private oratory deputed solely for divine worship and to be visited and designated by the Ordinary, even during an interdict to which they themselves did not give cause, or when it was not through them that it was not removed—and that those who otherwise had a faculty for this from the executor of these letters may, even for an hour before daybreak and for an hour after midday, in their own presence and that of their families, servants, and relatives, celebrate Masses and other divine offices by themselves if they are priests, or cause them to be celebrated by another; and during the time of an interdict to be present at them, with the doors closed, the bells not rung, and excommunicated persons and those specially under interdict excluded—yet in such a way that, if they wish to use a private oratory for the aforesaid things, as often as they do so they are bound to pour forth certain prayers to God for the exaltation of Holy Mother Church, the propagation of the Catholic Faith, the peace and concord of Christian Princes, the extirpation of heresies, and the conversion of sinners; and also, during an interdict of this kind, to receive the Eucharist and other Sacraments in the said churches or oratory, except on Easter Day, and to be able to bury with moderate funeral pomp the bodies of the same Christian faithful who die during an interdict of this kind, unless perhaps they died bound by the bond of excommunication.

“III. Furthermore, We likewise grant and concede by Apostolic authority that, within the boundaries of the Spanish dominion only and not in other places, during the aforesaid year the same Christian faithful may freely and lawfully use and eat eggs and dairy products, and also meat upon the advice of both physicians if necessity, infirm health of body, or any other want should require it, both on Lenten days and on the other days of that year on which the use of meat, eggs, and dairy products is prohibited, the law of fasting being observed in other respects. But with respect to the time of Lent, We will that Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and inferior Prelates, as well as regular ecclesiastics of nonmilitary Orders and secular priests who have not reached the age of sixty years, be excepted from this indult.

“IV. Likewise, to the same Christian faithful, as often during the said year as they shall voluntarily fast outside the days consecrated to fasting, or, being lawfully impeded from fasting, shall perform another pious work prescribed for them by their parish priest or confessor and shall offer pious prayers to God for the exaltation of Holy Mother Church, the propagation of the Catholic Faith, the peace and concord of Christian Princes, the extirpation of heresies, and the conversion of sinners, We mercifully grant in the Lord fifteen years and as many quarantines of indulgence and remission, provided that they are at least contrite; and We bestow upon them participation in the prayers, alms, and other pious works which are performed throughout the whole Church Militant on that very day on which they fast.

“V. Moreover, to those Christian faithful, during the said year, who on the individual days of the Stations of Our Beloved City devoutly visit five churches or altars—or, in their absence, one and the same altar five times—and, in the case of nuns of any Order and regular Institute and of women and girls dwelling in any monasteries or conservatories, if perhaps they do not have churches, the chapels respectively to be designated by the ecclesiastical men who are their lawful superiors, and who in them pour forth pious prayers to God for the aforesaid ends, by this same Our Apostolic authority We mercifully grant in the Lord all and each of the indulgences, remissions of sins, and relaxations of penances granted to the other churches, both within and outside the walls of Our aforesaid Beloved City, to which the Stations are assigned; indeed, on the days on which only a partial indulgence has been given even for the Stations of the City, We grant that the Christian faithful mentioned, being truly penitent and having confessed and been refreshed by Holy Communion, may, upon performing the above-mentioned visitation, gain a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins, but only once on each of the aforesaid days. Moreover, We decree and declare that all and each of the indulgences granted in these Apostolic Letters are applicable to the souls of the Christian faithful who, united to God in charity, have departed from this life.

“VI. Now, so that the aforesaid faithful may more easily enjoy the holy indulgences, We grant that twice—that is, once in life and once at the moment of death—they may choose for themselves a secular or regular priest who is a confessor approved by the Ordinary, and that by him, in the forum of conscience, they may be absolved from any sins and censures reserved to any Ordinary and even to the Apostolic See, except the crime of heresy, and, with respect to ecclesiastics, except also the censure mentioned in the Constitution Sacramentum poenitentiae of Pope Benedict XIV, a salutary penance always being imposed and those other things being enjoined which are to be enjoined by law. Furthermore, We likewise grant by Apostolic authority that simple vows emitted by those Christian faithful—except, however, the vow of going overseas, the vow of chastity, and the vow of religion—may be commuted by the same confessor into other pious works, with some subsidy attached to them to be transmitted to the executor of these letters for the aforesaid pious ends.

“VII. In addition, We likewise grant in the Lord that the same Christian faithful may, not merely once but twice in each year from the publication of these letters, contribute the aforesaid alms, take a summary of these graces, and thereby obtain the aforesaid indulgences, concessions, and indults both for themselves and, by way of suffrage, for the souls detained in purgatory; and that twice within the same year, as stated above, they may use and enjoy them and become participants in the spiritual goods attached to them.

“VIII. Moreover, We give to the same executor of these letters the power to dispense from irregularity those who, while bound by ecclesiastical censures, have celebrated Masses and other divine offices—not, however, in contempt of the keys—or have otherwise involved themselves in divine things; and from any other irregularity arising from a delict, provided that a person has not remained hardened in an irregularity of this kind for six months; always excepting irregularities arising from homicide or simony, or apostasy from the faith or heresy, or the wrongful reception of orders, or another delict generating scandal among the people; a suitable alms to be expended for the aforesaid pious ends of this Our concession being imposed upon those dispensed, and the other things which are to be enjoined by law being enjoined. Likewise, excepting dignities of any kind, canonries of Cathedral or major churches, and benefices having the care of souls attached, he may validate titles to other benefices received under an irregularity of this kind and decree a composition concerning the fruits received from them in the meantime, to be expended for the same pious ends.

“IX. We grant to the same executor the faculty of permitting noble or qualified persons to be able to celebrate Masses themselves, if they are priests, or to have them celebrated by another in their presence, for an hour before daylight and for an hour after midday.

“X. Furthermore, that he may admit to a suitable composition concerning those fruits—one half to be expended for the churches or other places by reason of which they ought to recite the aforesaid Hours, and the other half for the aforesaid pious ends—ecclesiastical men who were bound to restitution of the fruits of simple benefices only, which do not have the care of souls attached and do not require personal residence, because of omission of the recitation of the Canonical Hours.

“XI. In addition, that he may dispense from the occult impediment of affinity arising from illicit intercourse, some alms for the same ends being imposed, with those who contracted marriage while at least one spouse was in good faith, so that they may contract that marriage itself anew, renewing consent secretly between themselves, in order afterward lawfully to remain in it; and that he may likewise dispense, so that they may seek the marital debt, with those who contracted an affinity of this kind after marriage.

“XII. We likewise give to the same executor the power, for the forum of conscience only, to decree a competent composition concerning things unjustly taken or acquired, to be expended for the aforesaid pious ends, provided, namely, that after due diligence has been employed to find them, they cannot find the owners to whom restitution would have to be made; that an oath concerning this diligence performed by them has been furnished by the debtors; and that the same debtors did not take or acquire those things in reliance upon and in hope of a composition of this kind.” Leo XIII, Brief Dum infidelium, 15 September 1902; A. S. S., vol. 35, p. 563 ff.

“Our Most Holy Father…deigned to prolong for the coming year…the Apostolic indult so that all the faithful of either sex and of either state, secular and ecclesiastical, residing in these Kingdoms and the Canary Islands, may eat wholesome meats—while observing the form of the fast—on the days of Lent and the other vigils and days of abstinence throughout the year, with the exception of those which will be expressed below; but declaring not to be comprehended in this privilege regulars who are bound by vow to the perpetual use of Lenten foods. Therefore, because you…have contributed the alms of…and receive this Summary, we dispense you so that you may eat wholesome meats on the days of Lent and the other vigils and days of abstinence of the coming year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, except Ash Wednesday, the Fridays of each week of Lent, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of Holy or Greater Week—and the whole of it apart from Palm Sunday if you are an ecclesiastic—the vigils of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Pentecost, the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the blessed Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, for all; with the warning that, in order to use this privilege, you must possess the Bull of the Holy Crusade and, in addition, if you are an ecclesiastic, the Dairy Indult in order to be able to use dairy products on the days of Lent if you have not completed sixty years, according to the tenor of the Edict issued on the first of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty. Given at Madrid on….”

“…His Holiness Leo XIII deigned…to grant…the faculty of eating eggs and dairy products throughout the whole time of Lent—with the exception of Holy Week—to Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, inferior Prelates, and secular and regular Priests who may be in these Kingdoms of Spain and who, by taking this Summary, contribute for the ends expressed in the Bull of the Holy Crusade the alms which we shall designate. And therefore, We…, using the Apostolic faculty granted to us, have assessed what each of the aforesaid Ecclesiastics must give in order to enjoy this Indult, in the following manner: ….

“Consequently, we declare that each of those named above, by taking this Summary and contributing the alms respectively designated—and not otherwise—may eat eggs and dairy products within these Kingdoms during the time of Lent—with the exception of Holy Week, apart from Palm Sunday—of the year which is to be counted from the next publication of this said Bull in each of their places.

“And because you…have taken this Summary, giving one peseta and fifteen centimos for the said ends, the said faculty is permitted to you. Given at Toledo….”

“Whether the Christian faithful who enjoy the Bull of the Crusade and the Lenten Indult, when traveling outside the limits of the Spanish dominion, can eat meat on forbidden days in the same manner as if they dwelt in Spain, even if fasting foods are not lacking? — Resp. Negatively.” Holy Office, 22 June 1897.

“1. Whether by force of the aforesaid Bull it is lawful for cloistered regulars of either sex, during Lent, to eat eggs and dairy products in addition to meat? — 2. Whether it is lawful for the same, as for the other faithful, on certain days excepted, to mix eggs and dairy products with fish? — Resp. Regulars of either sex, except those who are bound by a special vow, can, by force of the Bull of the Crusade, eat meat, eggs, and dairy products even during the fasts of Lent, and also mix eggs and dairy products with fish at the same meal. Priests dwelling outside the cloister, however, are bound to obtain the Dairy Summary, like secular priests. — The Most Eminent Fathers ordered that this decree be communicated to Your Eminence so that you may take care to make it public.” Holy Office, 22 November 1890, to the Lord Cardinal Patriarch Archbishop of Toledo, Commissary General of the Bull of the Crusade.

“Regulars of either sex, except those who are bound by a special vow, can, by force of the Bull of the Crusade, eat meat, eggs, and dairy products even during the fasts of Lent, and also mix eggs and dairy products with fish at the same meal. But regular priests dwelling outside the cloister—commonly called exclaustrados—are bound, in addition to the Bull of the Crusade and the Meat Summary, also to obtain the Dairy Summary, like secular priests. But for regulars dwelling within the cloister—whether they are priests, laymen, or nuns—the Bull of the Crusade and the Meat Summary suffice, unless they are of the Order of Minims of Saint Francis, who possess no goods and for whom the Bull of the Crusade suffices.” Holy Office, 7 March 1891; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 504 ff.

“Whether regulars dwelling within the cloister can, even by force of the Bull of the Crusade alone, eat eggs and dairy products during the fasts of Lent, Greater Week not excepted? — Resp. Affirmatively, except for Priests, who, like secular priests and regular priests dwelling outside the cloister and possessing the Dairy Indult, must abstain from eggs and dairy products throughout Greater Week; and according to the mind. The mind is that Superiors should take care that lay regulars and Nuns dwelling within the cloister observe the fast during Greater Week as Priests do, but not under precept.” Holy Office, 31 January 1901.

“Regulars who are not bound by a special vow of abstinence from meat enjoy the indult, promulgated for the faithful by the local Ordinaries in the name of the Holy Apostolic See, concerning the observance of foods during Lent and throughout the year.” Holy Office, 20 December 1871; 20 January 1892.

“I. With respect to the privilege concerning the commutation of vows, confessors are advised: 1. that, unlike what was expressed in the earlier Briefs, today, after the Brief Iam inde of 1856, vows can no longer be dispensed by commuting them—which would involve a commutation to something lesser—but can simply be commuted; and therefore at present there is no other faculty than that of substituting for the work vowed another equal or almost equal work; 2. that all vows can be commuted except solemn vows and two simple vows among those reserved to the Holy See, namely, the vow of perpetual chastity and that of entering religion—it being understood, of course, when these last two have the conditions required for being reserved.

“II. With respect to the faculty of absolving from reserved cases, it is necessary to note and to advise confessors: 1. that all cases reserved to the Holy See—not those reserved by the respective Ordinaries—can be absolved in the forum of conscience, with only two exceptions, namely, externally manifested heresy, although occult, and the excommunication contracted by a confessor who has absolved an accomplice; 2. that this faculty is restricted to only two occasions during the year of enjoying the Indult, namely, once during the course of life and another time at the moment of death, which is textual in the above-mentioned Brief; 3. that under the name of cases reserved to the Holy See there are understood to be included also those which the same Holy See has reserved to the Ordinaries of places, commonly called Casus Nobis, since these are pontifical in origin; 4. that the faculty of absolving from all the said cases is always granted with the clauses, A salutary penance being imposed, and the other things which are to be enjoined by law being enjoined. Hence, before absolving, confessors must carefully note such clauses and cause the penitents to fulfill those obligations which in some cases are required either by the general law, e.g., the injured party having been satisfied; an oath having been furnished not to commit that crime again, etc.; or by the Sacred Penitentiary. Thus, for example, when there is question of invaders of the temporal dominion and their cooperators or adherents, there is imposed the obligation of repairing the scandal in the best possible manner and of emitting an oath to obey the Holy See and its commands to be issued concerning the matter; likewise, for those who have acquired ecclesiastical goods, it is prescribed by the Sacred Penitentiary that they must present themselves to their own Ordinary and submit to everything that shall be imposed upon them according to the mind of the Holy See. These and other clauses must indispensably be weighed well by confessors; otherwise they will not be able lawfully to use this faculty, and in some cases they will expose themselves to the danger of absolving invalidly.

“III. As to the privilege of using eggs, dairy products, and rendered fat used by way of condiment, it is very well known: 1. that the faithful can use this privilege on all days of the year without exception, provided that they dwell within the territory of the Neapolitan provinces; so that, if they leave that territory and go to dwell elsewhere, even for a short time, they cannot enjoy this concession. On days of Lent, however—except Sundays—and likewise on all other days of fasting, the use of the said foods is not permitted to them more than once a day, namely, at the one meal, unless by reason of age or another excusing cause they are exempt from the fast with respect to the one meal; 2. that priests and professed religious of either sex can at present also enjoy this privilege, except during Greater Week for those who have not completed the age of sixty years, beginning from Palm Sunday. Those religious, however, who by their own Institute are bound to perpetual Lent cannot use this concession on any day of the year.

“IV. With respect to indulgences, it is to be noted: 1. that the faithful can participate in all the indulgences granted in any form by the Holy See to all the Confraternities, Companies, and Congregations existing throughout all the Neapolitan provinces, no differently than if they were associated with them; and these indulgences can also be applied by way of suffrage for the faithful departed; 2. that on all days appointed for the Sacred Stations of Rome, by visiting five Churches or five Altars, the faithful can participate in all the indulgences granted to the Churches within or outside Rome to which the aforesaid Stations are attached, praying to the Lord for concord among Christian princes, for the abolition of heresies, and for the exaltation of the Catholic Church; and these indulgences can also be applied by way of suffrage for the faithful departed; 3. that the aforesaid indulgences can also be gained by religious women of any Order or regular Institute and by all women and girls who live in any Monastery, Conservatory, or Retreat; and if they do not have their own Churches, they shall visit the Chapels designated by their Superiors.

“V. With respect to the alms to be expended, it is to be observed: 1. that it must necessarily come into the hands of the Ordinary, nor is it lawful for any of the faithful to employ it for other uses, however pious and holy. Hence it will be the duty of the Ordinary himself to designate most faithful ecclesiastical persons to whom the faithful shall entrust the aforesaid alms, which, once gathered together, shall be delivered to him after Lent for the use prescribed by the Holy See. In Naples this charge is entrusted to the respective parish priests, who, after Low Sunday, deliver them to the Archbishop for the indicated use; 2. it should be noted that the mere intention of expending the alms, or of deferring it to another time during the year, is not at all sufficient, but it is altogether indispensable that it actually be expended, and at no other time than Septuagesima Sunday; otherwise the privileges cannot be enjoyed except from that day on which it shall actually be expended; 3. the aforesaid alms must correspond to the amount determined by the Apostolic Commissary, who has received the appropriate faculty from the Holy See; hence, if that amount is not observed, no privilege whatsoever can ever be enjoyed. Therefore, let the table placed at the end of the present instruction under the title Clarification Concerning Article Five be kept in mind.

“VI. It will not be out of place to point out to Confessors that neither the Ordinary nor the Parish Priest can render a member of the faithful capable of enjoying the aforesaid privileges unless the above-mentioned alms is expended. Only when a doubt arises concerning the classes of persons, namely, whether they are bound to a greater or lesser alms, can they issue an appropriate declaration in favor of those subject to them according to Christian prudence and charity, and nothing more. — But if it should happen that someone, through mere inability to expend the alms, were dispensed either by the Ordinary or by the Parish Priest, he will never be able to use the privileges indicated above, but only to use eggs and dairy products on forbidden days; and this not by force of the privilege of the indult, but rather by the faculty which is granted to them by law and custom, and with the analogous and necessary limitations.”

“1. Nobles and prelates, even minor ones, shall give an alms of forty-one grana.

“2. Noble and wealthy families shall give an alms of forty-one grana for the head of the household, another of forty-one grana for the wife, and a third alms, likewise of forty-one grana, for all the rest of the entire family, provided that they live from a common table.

“3. Noble families which find themselves in straitened circumstances of poverty shall give a single alms of forty-one grana for the whole family. If, however, the children or any one of them has received a particular allowance, each one must give the alms of forty-one grana for himself in particular.

“4. Religious women who have a particular allowance, even though they have only the common table at the expense of the Community, shall each give an alms of twenty-one grana. For those who have no allowance, the Community shall give an alms of eleven grana for each religious. Those enclosed in Conservatories and Retreats, whether oblates or so-called lay sisters, if they receive some monthly allowance not less than seven ducats, shall each give an alms of twenty-one grana; but if the monthly allowance is less than the said amount, each shall give an alms of eleven grana. If, however, the said Conservatories or Retreats are altogether poor and live from the charity of the faithful, it will suffice that each of the said poor establishments give an alms of eleven grana for all those who form part of those establishments.

“5. For mendicant religious living in community, the Community itself shall give an alms of twenty-one grana for all the religious priests and clerics of that House, and another alms of eleven grana for the lay religious. Those religious, even mendicants, who do not live in community shall each, if priests, give an alms of eleven grana. Among non-mendicant religious, each priest shall give an alms of twenty-one grana, and each layman an alms of eleven grana.

“6. The well-to-do, or wealthy property owners, shall give for each family three alms of twenty-one grana: one for the head of the household, another for the wife, and another for all the rest of the family, provided that they live from a common table. But if the children or any one of them has received a particular allowance, or, being a cleric, enjoys the fruits of the Sacred patrimony, each must give the same alms of twenty-one grana for himself in particular. Property owners who are not wealthy shall give an alms of twenty-one grana for everyone in the family, with the same condition, namely, that if the children or any one of them has received a particular allowance, each must give the same alms of twenty-one grana for himself in particular.

“7. Wealthy professionals, merchants, and employees shall give the alms as the well-to-do, or wealthy property owners; but if they are not wealthy, yet do not live from day to day, they shall give an alms of twenty-one grana, to be valid also for the wife and children who live from a common table; and although by chance one of the children should be away from home, he will not have to give another alms.

“8. Priests and the other ecclesiastics of the secular clergy shall each give an alms of twenty-one grana. But if the priest is the head of a family, supporting it at his own expense, then, in addition to the said alms of twenty-one grana which the said priest must give for himself, he shall give another of eleven grana for the entire family.

“9. For servants who live with their master and receive food and shelter from him, the master can give an alms of eleven grana for every two of them; but if there are more than two, he shall give an alms of twenty-one grana; if more than four, an alms of forty-one grana. It should be noted that the said alms for servants will also be valid for those who enter in their place if any of them should leave.

“10. Whoever lives by daily labor, such as a man of the countryside or of the sea, a market seller, an artisan’s assistant, a liveried servant, a porter, and the like, shall give an alms of eleven grana. But if any of them has a family, he shall give for all an alms of twenty-one grana, even though the children earn in common with the father, provided that none of them lives under a separate economy, since in that case he would have to regulate himself as stated above. But in the case in which only the head of the family earns and the earnings are scarcely sufficient for the support of the family, it will suffice to give an alms of eleven grana for all.

“11. Directors of educational institutes, both male and female, if these are boarding establishments, shall give an alms of twenty-one grana for every four pupils, to be valid for the whole year even if the number of pupils should increase; if they are gratuitous, they shall give eleven grana for all.

“12. When a doubt arises in particular cases about determining within which of the stated classifications an individual or family is comprehended, the local Ordinaries can decide in favor of their diocesans according to the rules of Christian prudence, for the tranquility of the consciences of the faithful; and Parish Priests can also do so in favor of their parishioners in particular cases.” M. E., vol. 8, part 1, p. 275 ff.