On the Eucharist

"In this region... a custom has arisen... of making bread from crushed grains, and infused in water for some hours, not however unto corruption. They press these grains with the hands, and, when the white matter has come forth, they make breads with hot iron, in the manner customary in Europe.... Whether the aforesaid making of bread for Mass is lawful? Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless let the Vicar Apostolic take care, if it can be done, that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made be not only crushed, but reduced into flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be exactly cleansed by sieve, and that bread be made from the same in the manner used in Europe." S. O. 23 June 1852.

"Whether it is lawful to celebrate with wine made from raisins? Resp. That it is lawful, provided that the liquid is discerned by color and taste to be true wine." S. C. de P. F. 23 July 1706.

Cf. On the Sacrament of Penance, N. 563, 564.

"Whether the Stole for ministering the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass must always be of the color corresponding to the Office of that day, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, or rather ought to be white, as very fitting for the Sacred Eucharist, as many Doctors judge? Resp. According to the rubric of the Roman Ritual, it ought to be of the color corresponding to the Office of that day." S. R. C. 12 March 1836.

"In the administration of the sacred Eucharist outside Mass, a stole of the color corresponding to the Office of that day is prescribed by the Rubric of the Roman Ritual. It is asked whether the stole of the color of the Office or of the Mass is to be employed 1. on Thursday of Great Week; 2. on vigils and ferias of the four times, or the Monday of Rogations (or on ferias of Lent, where Octaves have been conceded), which occur within a non-privileged Octave, if, according to the Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal, the Office is celebrated of the Octave and the Mass of the Vigil or Feria? Resp. To each, let the Rubric of the Roman Ritual be observed, and where the custom of administering the Sacred Eucharist with a white stole to the Faithful fulfilling the Paschal precept is in force, it is to be tolerated." S. R. C. 11 Aug. 1877.

The Prayer and Versicles of the season must be said, with Alleluia omitted. S. R. C. 26 Nov. 1878.

"For the sick near death, of whatever condition they may be, although they dwell in a sordid and vile place or hut, let the Viaticum of the Most Holy Eucharist be brought, since with God there is no acceptance of persons, and for our salvation he did not shrink from the stable or the ignominy of the Cross." Clement IX, Const. In Excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669.

"... As soon as the S. C. understood that in certain Dioceses of that region a custom, or rather abuse, had prevailed that Priests would carry the Most Holy Sacrament with them from morning until evening, for this cause only, that they might perhaps happen upon some sick person, it judged that it should be written to the Metropolitans, so that it would declare that custom to be altogether abhorrent from the practice of the Church... Issue such decrees, by which the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament may be restricted to urgent causes only, and to the actual exercise of the Priestly ministry...." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 25 Feb. 1853.

"But where the force and iniquity of the Turks prevails, let the Priest always have the stole covered with his own garments, let him conceal the pyx in a little bag or burse, which, suspended by cords from the neck, he should place in his breast, and let him never proceed alone, but let him be accompanied by at least one faithful person in default of a Cleric." Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744.

"That Sacred Viaticum can be carried to the sick without a stole in a case of necessity." S. C. de P. F. 20 Dec. 1739. Father Windsiller, Missionary in China.

"... 1. Whether it can be lawful for the Missionaries of these regions secretly, and without light and stole, to administer the Most Holy Sacrament to the sick, when otherwise it cannot be administered? ... 2. Whether the Vicar Apostolic can permit Missionaries that they 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 of the Most Holy Eucharist, if it were lawful to administer it without surplice and stole. Resp. To the 1st affirmatively, for the matter concerns a faculty already conceded by the Supreme Pontiffs. To the 2nd affirmatively and as regards those detained for a time, insofar as they ask, yet according to the judgment and prudence of the Vicar Apostolic." S. C. de P. F. 9 Dec. 1822; 5 July 1854.

"Whether it can 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, can secretly receive it with their own hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be recognized and seized? Resp. Affirmatively, provided that so great a Sacrament is exposed to no danger of irreverence or other danger." S. C. de P. F. 10 Aug. 1841.

Resp. "Negatively, unless there is a custom." S. R. C. 22 Sept. 1837. But after Mass it is lawful, S. R. C. 7 Sept. 1850, or, if custom again bears this, after the Gloria has been sung. S. R. C. 13 Jan. 1882. Cf. Gardell. n. 4499; D'Annibale, N. 273, 274.

"Is it to be genuflected by a priest returning to the altar after the communion of the faithful, before he covers the sacred pyx, and again to be genuflected before, the pyx having been placed back in the tabernacle, he closes the little door of the tabernacle itself?" S. R. C. 23 Dec. 1862. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 547.

"The General of the Order of St. John of God humbly asked from the S. R. C. that it deign to declare the following doubts concerning the manner of carrying Sacred Communion within Mass to the sick, in force in the hospitals of his Order, namely: 1. Whether, after the Confiteor, Misereatur, Ecce Agnus, Domine non sum dignus have been recited at the altar, it can be permitted that the Priest with the Pyx, without humeral veil, carry Sacred Communion to the sick, accompanied by at least 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. Whether Sacred Communion can be carried in the above-mentioned manner not only in the whole hospital, whether from the posterior part of the altar, but also in some rooms, from which, although the altar is not seen, nevertheless the voice of the Priest celebrating is heard? 3. Whether it can be permitted that, in place of the Priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist to the sick, another, even a layman, recite the prayers? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, nothing stands in the way, provided however that in the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament an umbrella is altogether employed. To the 3rd, nothing stands in the way that those standing by recite some prayers while the Sacred Eucharist is distributed." S. R. C. 7 Feb. 1874.

"Whether it is lawful for one celebrating in a private or religious house to carry before purification Holy Communion, for the sake of devotion and not by way of Viaticum, to a sick person dwelling in the same house, although one must ascend to the upper part of the house and pass through another corridor? Resp. It is not lawful, according to the decree of 19 Dec. 1829; but if necessity urges, let Mass be finished." S. R. C. 17 Dec. 1844.

Cf. N. 295.

"Whether, for exposing the Sacred Host in an Ostensorium, it is lawful to use a lunula which consists of two little glass disks, surrounded and to be closed by a thin border or circle of gilded silver, so that the Sacred Host adheres underneath to the silver circle itself, but before and behind immediately touches the glass disks themselves, and through them is held upright? Resp. As it is set forth in the case, that it is not becoming to enclose the sacred species between glass plates whose surfaces immediately touch them." S. R. C. 4 Feb. 1871.

"Whenever from a private cause the Most Holy Eucharist will seem to be exposed, let it never be extracted from the tabernacle, but, with the pyx veiled, let it be placed in the open little door of the same tabernacle, with the assistance of some priest vested with stole and surplice, and with at least six wax lights. We command that the same be observed in churches of seculars." S. C. EE. and RR. 6 Dec. 1602, at Benedict XIV, Inst. 30, n. 21.

"1. Since from certain responses of the Most Holy Roman Congregations some think that the Sacred Pyx, with the little door of the Tabernacle opened, can be exposed to the piety of the faithful, but by no means extracted from it; but others judge that it can be brought out only so that with it the people may be blessed, 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 negatively; can it be permitted, by force of custom, to those Congregations or Religious families which have been accustomed to do so also elsewhere? 3. Can it be conceded, to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, also to other Congregations asking for it? Resp. To the 1st, affirmatively. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the first. To the 3rd, affirmatively." S. R. C. 16 Jan. 1886.

"Whether the Instruction for the Prayer of Forty Hours, first issued at Rome by order of Clement XI of happy memory, can and must be observed also outside the City? Resp. That the aforesaid Instruction does not oblige outside the City; nevertheless those are to be praised who strive to conform themselves to it, unless something else has been established by the Ordinaries of places." S. R. C. 12 July 1749.

"The Vicar Apostolic of Western Tongking... permitted that in diverse districts the Most Holy Sacrament be preserved, namely in particular rooms decently adorned, for the sick, with a lamp lit. For unless it were done so, a very great multitude of the sick would die without Viaticum. Hence he most humbly asks that Your Holiness will deign to approve this practice, in the aforesaid and similar case, for the tranquility of the conscience of the Orator. Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX kindly remitted the prayers to the judgment and prudence of the Vicar Apostolic, with necessary and opportune faculties, while the circumstances endure, and with the things to be observed being observed." 22 Sept. 1850.

"But as regards the Benedictions desired by those faithful, and customarily given by ancient custom in some churches, either with a portable statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary in solemnities of the same Virgin Mother of God, or in novenaries and other pious exercises instituted in her honor, as in the so-called Marian Month, etc., or likewise with a statue of the Infant Jesus, from the time of the Nativity of the Lord up to Epiphany, we judge that nothing plainly stands in the way that a custom of this kind can be tolerated by Your Amplitude." S. C. de P. F. 1 Apr. 1854.

The key of the Tabernacle is to be retained by Parish Priests, Rectors, Sacrists, or anyone else to whom the custody of the Tabernacle belongs, with himself, or in a safe place and closed by a key. And this is to be observed also by Regulars. S. C. EE. and RR. 9 Feb. 1751. Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Tabernaculum.

"Petroleum, or another Oil from vegetables, can by no means be employed for illuminating the Church; but only in a case of necessity from the prudence of Ordinaries." S. C. R. 20 March 1869. "Besides candles from wax, it cannot be tolerated that illumination from gas also be had (upon Altars); the aforesaid use (gas upon Altars) must be prohibited." S. C. R. 13 Apr. 1883. The same is to be said with stronger reason concerning electric light.

"To a sick person near death, who has been judged worthy of absolution of sins, the Most Holy Viaticum also is to be conceded." S. C. de P. F. 26 July 1845.

"Viaticum is not to be administered unless they at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing the presence of Christ the Lord in the sacred Host." S. C. S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

Cf. On the 6th Precept of the Church, N. 489.

"With salt having been tasted beforehand by Catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, nevertheless there is still no doubt that, after receiving Baptism, they can be admitted to sacred Communion; indeed truly they ought to be: so altogether does the Church, in whose power it is to dispense in peculiar cases from the general law of the Eucharistic fast, introduced by herself for those who outside danger of death desire to receive sacred Communion, prescribe in the Roman Ritual, where it hands down the rite by which Baptism is to be conferred on adults." S. C. de P. F. 13 Feb. 1806.

"Nuns asking for sacred Communion daily will have to be admonished that they communicate on the days prescribed by the Institute of their Order. But if any shine forth by purity of mind and have grown so warm by fervor of spirit that they can seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the Most Holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by Superiors." S. C. C. 12 Feb. 1679. Cf. Collect. Const. etc. for the use of the Apostolic Workers, Paris, 1880, n. 367.

"Whether and by whose license nuns ought to receive the Eucharist who wish to receive it beyond the days established by the constitutions, or by the custom of the monastery, so that on those days all nuns communicate? Resp. By license of the ordinary confessor, and not of directors, with prior participation of the ordinary Prelate." S. C. C. 14 Apr. 1725. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 2, p. 181.

"As regards sacramental Communion, the Most Holy Lord commanded that the Constitutions of the Sisters... are to be reduced to conformity with common law, as established by Decrees of the Holy See.... Let the Superior alone have the faculty of prohibiting a Sister access to Sacramental Communion in the single case in which she, after the last Confession, has committed a somewhat grave and public defect with the astonishment of the other sisters, and this until the aforesaid Sister has again approached the Sacrament of Penance...." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 June 1876. Much less does the Chapter of the Monastery have the aforesaid faculty. S. C. C. 14 Apr. 1725. Cf. cited Collect., n. 368.

"... The aforesaid sisters and certain others, supported by the authority of ecclesiastical superiors, are all refreshed daily by the sacred Synaxis, although, according to the rules and decisions of very many Theologians, such and so great a grace ought to be reserved for certain persons only and in certain circumstances only. But since the above-praised pious sisters would be affected with much grief if they were to be deprived of so great a consolation, it is asked what must be done in the case? Resp. That the custom of nuns approaching daily to sacramental Communion is laudable. But it pertains to the Confessor to permit this to individuals according to the rules handed down by approved authors and especially by St. Alphonsus de Ligorio." S. Poenit. 19 Nov. 1885. "That the custom is to be praised, and the use of frequently receiving the Most Holy Eucharist to be promoted, according to the disposition of the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 8." S. R. C. 2 Dec. 1885.

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, N. 192.

"1. Whether it is lawful for priests to use black vestments and to celebrate a Mass of Requiem, so that they may satisfy the obligation which they undertook of celebrating according to the intention of the one giving the alms, when they are wholly ignorant what his intention is, whether for the dead or not? 2. Whether it is lawful for priests to use black vestments and to celebrate a Mass of Requiem, so that they may satisfy the obligation which they undertook of celebrating for the living? The S. C. R. rescripted to the 1st affirmatively, to the 2nd affirmatively, provided that he who gave the alms did not prescribe otherwise." S. C. de P. F. 13 Oct. 1856.

"We decree and declare that all and singular Bishops, increased by whatever dignity, even Cardinalitial, likewise Abbots having jurisdiction quasi-episcopal over Clergy and people with a separate territory, on Sundays and other feast days which are still observed by precept, and which have been removed from the number of feast days of precept, every excuse of smallness of revenues or any other exception removed, are bound to celebrate and apply Mass for the people committed to them.

And lest access lie open to any doubt, we declare that the same Bishops and Abbots will satisfy this office by the celebration and application of one Mass for the whole people committed to them, even if they rule two or more Dioceses and Abbeys equally principally united. We know indeed that Our Roman Congregations have decreed otherwise concerning parish priests managing two or more parochial churches equally principally united; in each of these it is necessary that individual Masses be celebrated on feast days and applied for the people. But one account belongs to parish priests, another to Bishops. For since to each parish priest a special and defined care of the people has been committed in each parish, on feast days the parish priest ought not only to celebrate for the people, but also to admit the people into the parochial temple, so that it may be present at the most holy sacrifice of Mass, and hear the word of God, and receive the Sacraments according to opportunity, and be cultivated by all those offices which are to be furnished especially on Sundays and other feasts. But these things cannot apply to Bishops, who are situated in a dissimilar condition and cause, since by no law today are they ordered on all feast days to perform the holy Sacrifice in the Cathedral church.

But although by no means necessary, nevertheless we judge it opportune to declare that those things which have been constituted above do not regard Bishops who are called Titular, and who, promoted to episcopal dignity, are therefore adorned by the Roman Pontiff with the title of Cathedral Churches which, once flourishing, now are destitute of Catholic Clergy and people, lest namely their ancient dignity and memory be utterly deleted. For since they themselves do not take possession of their sees, only when it has been received are Bishops bound to fulfill the duty of which we have spoken (S. C. Rit. in Marsor., 12 November 1831), and since neither Clergy nor people is entrusted to their rule, it is sufficiently established that, as they lack the use and exercise of the power received from episcopal consecration, so also they are by no means subject to the offices and burdens of episcopal care. But nevertheless, if account is had of episcopal equity and charity, it cannot but seem consonant that they also sometimes offer sacrifice, so that God may look upon the miserable condition of those Churches by whose title and name they themselves are honored. With this matter the things fit best which were said by Pius VI, Our Predecessor, in the consecration of the Bishop of Cyrene on 4 October in the year 1778 in the Ostian Basilica; namely, when enumerating the causes on account of which the Apostolic See is accustomed to confer Churches even occupied by infidels, he says, 'it is fitting that there exist someone upon whom it singularly falls, if not to rule that captive portion of the miserable flock, at least to pour out prayers and tears continually for the same to the Father of mercies.'" Leo XIII, Const. In suprema rei, Ides of June, 1882.

"20. Since a Bishop on feast days ought to apply for his sheep, it is asked whether, when the Bishop on these days celebrates pontifically, the canons ought to sing the conventual Mass for benefactors, and when? 22. Are Bishops bound to the application of Mass for their sheep after possession has been obtained, or as soon as they have been elected in consistory? 23. Are Capitular Vicars bound to this application of Mass when the See is Vacant? Resp. To 20. Let the Hebdomadary, or he to whom the burden of the conventual Mass belongs, celebrate that Mass read either before or after the pontifical Mass. To 22. After possession has been obtained. To 23. Negatively." S. R. C. 12 Nov. 1851, Gardell. n. 4669.

"1. Whether apostolic Vicars and Missionaries, who in whatever way undertake care of souls in some determinate place, are bound indiscriminately from justice to apply Mass for the people on feast days? And insofar as affirmatively: 2. Upon which Apostolic Vicars and Missionaries does a burden of this kind fall? 3. Whether to those who are not bound from justice one must respond: it is fitting from charity, or: they are bound from charity, to apply Mass for the people? 4. Whether, the formula 'they are bound from charity' being approved, this ought to be understood of obligation under grave sin? Resp. To 1. Negatively, provided that the matter is not concerning places in which the Episcopal Sees and Parishes are already canonically erected, and to these the Apostolic Vicar and Missionary have been sent, so that they may act in the place of legitimate Pastors. To 2. Provision has been made in the first. To 3. The expression 'to be bound from charity' is to be avoided; but it is to be said 'to be fitting from charity,' and this in such a way that no signification of properly so called obligation appears. To 4. Provision has been made in the third." S. C. de P. F. 23 March 1863. Previously the S. C. had answered: "Missionaries are bound from charity." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 407.

1. "Whether the obligation of applying Mass for the people, which according to the law of the Western Church is imposed on parish priests and other ecclesiastical men obtaining the care of souls, has place similarly for the same persons of the Oriental rite? And insofar as affirmatively. 2. Concerning the determination of days, whether the laws and reasonable customs which perhaps are in force in some dioceses of the said rite ought to be observed? 3. In defect of these laws and customs, whether determination of this kind ought to be made according to the norm and in every part according to Western laws? 4. Whether because of grave causes and circumstances there can be place for some reduction of days predefined by Western laws, and even for total dispensation, yet with the obligation of praying for the people in those very Masses which would have to be applied for them? Resp. To 1. Affirmatively, the doubt having been reformed as follows: Whether the obligation of applying Mass for the people, which according to the law of the Western Church is imposed on Bishops and parish priests, has place similarly for the same persons of the Oriental rite? To 2. Affirmatively. To 3. Negatively. To 4. Provision has been made in the third, and according to the mind. The mind is that, when opportunity has been given, there be manifested to the Bishops of the Eastern Church the obligation which also in the same Church falls upon pastors of souls of applying Mass for the people some times, and therefore that, as pertains to the determination of days, the discipline of the Western Church be explained to them, so that they may take light from it by which they may be able to judge how far the same discipline can agree with their dioceses, and likewise that they propose to the Holy See, in whatever case, the temperaments which are judged more necessary." S. C. de P. F. 23 March 1863. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 389 ff.

Also immune from this obligation are vicars or coadjutors of Parish Priests who do not exercise primary care of souls but only subsidiary care, Chaplains of Nuns, Chaplains of Hospitals, and of other places of this kind. S. R. C. 14 June 1845; 7 Dec. 1844; S. C. C. 2 June 1860.

"Whether parish priests ought to offer the Sacrifice of Holy Mass for the people, if they are not impeded by a legitimate cause, or whether they can satisfy this office through another, for example a sacristan or a visiting presbyter. Resp. Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second, except in the case of true necessity and when a canonical cause concurs." S. C. C. 25 Sept. 1847; 18 July 1789. Cf. Lucidi, ch. 3, sec. 2, n. 569 ff.

"Whether the application must always be made by the parish priest, even when celebrating privately, while another celebrates the parochial Mass? Resp. Affirmatively according to decrees issued at other times." S. R. C. 20 Dec. 1864.

"Whether parish priests on Sundays and other feast days, with a corpse present, can celebrate Mass for the deceased, and transfer to another day the Mass to be applied for the people in the case? And insofar as negatively, whether at least they can supply the application of Mass for the people through another priest in the case? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, negatively." S. C. C. 26 Jan. 1771.

"1. Whether a parish priest absent from his parish on a feast day satisfies his obligation by celebrating Mass for the people in the place where he is staying, or rather is bound to substitute another who may say Mass for the people in his own Church? 2. Whether he is bound to apply Mass for the people in the place where he is staying, or rather, returning to the parish, is bound to apply in his own church? 3. Whether a parish priest legitimately impeded because of illness from celebrating Mass is bound, after health has been recovered, to apply as many Masses for the people as he omitted during the illness, whether in the case in which he could celebrate neither by himself nor through another, or in the case in which he could through another but from some empty fear or negligence did not take care, or did not obtain, that another celebrate for him? Resp. A parish priest legitimately absent from his parish on a feast day satisfies his obligation by applying Mass for his own people in the place where he stays, provided that for the necessary convenience of the people another priest celebrates in the parochial Church and explains the word of God. But a parish priest, however legitimately impeded from celebrating Mass, is bound to have it celebrated and applied through another on the feast day for the people in the parochial Church; but if this was not done, as soon as he is able, he ought to apply Mass for the people." S. C. C. 14 Dec. 1872. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 191.

"1. Whether parish priests ruling two or more parishes are bound on feast days to celebrate two or more Masses for the people, by themselves or through others? 2. And insofar as they are bound by themselves, whether, according to the paths of the Constitution of Benedict XIV Declarasti nobis, the faculty of bination can be made for them? Resp. To the 1st. That the parish priest, as in the case, is bound either by himself or through another to celebrate as many Masses as the parishes he rules. To the 2nd. There is no place for the faculty of repeating Masses, unless, because of defect of clergy, no other priest is present who can celebrate and apply in place of the parish priest." S. C. C. 4 Feb. 1883.

"The Ordinary of the Diocese of Dijon in France sets forth these things: Because of the insufficient number of priests in the Diocese of Dijon, it not rarely happens that the same parish priest serves three churches, namely: 1. his own proper parish; 2. in a permanent manner another church, which, situated in another place and not enjoying a parochial title, is attached to the parochial church; 3. a church of a place having a parochial title, but because of the scarcity of priests, not possessing for a time its own resident parish priest.

By force of his institution, such a parish priest celebrates twice on individual Sundays and feast days, namely in his own parochial church and in the other church, not parochial, but permanently annexed to the parochial church, as is said. Hence it follows that the same by no means can celebrate Mass on Sundays and feast days in the third church, namely of the parish of which he has care for a time. Yet since he is bound to watch over that parish in which he does not reside, both for visiting the sick and for catechizing children and fulfilling many other duties, he receives two hundred francs from the Gallic government for the above-mentioned functions.

We ask: 1. Whether such a priest ought to supply the Masses which he cannot celebrate for his second parish on Sundays and feast days, with attention also to this circumstance, that the said pension of two hundred francs scarcely remunerates the aforesaid duties, the two parishes being very distant from each other; 2. Whether he ought to apply one or the other of the Masses which he celebrates, as has been said, on individual Sundays and feasts, at the same time for each parish; 3. Whether he ought to apply to this parish deprived of Mass that Mass which is celebrated in the annexed church without parochial title?

Since it has happened that several priests in good faith did not celebrate for their second parish, as in the case, we ask that their omissions, if it is necessary, be condoned.

Resp. To 1. Affirmatively, except that it would be desirable that he celebrate the second Mass in the second parish. To 2. It is not lawful. To 3. Affirmatively, if he cannot celebrate in the second parish, word having been had with the Most Holy Lord also as regards sanation as regards the past." S. C. C. 24 July 1886.

"Since several Benefices from their foundation have the burden of Mass to be applied on all feast days, a doubt emerges whether individual beneficiaries are obligated to this, even on feasts suppressed up to this time by the Apostolic See? Resp. According to resolutions issued at other times in similar matters, that they are bound." S. C. C. 15 Dec. 1856.

Whether an obligation exists of celebrating Mass in such a Church or at an altar, imposed only for feast days of precept, also on those days which, although they were of precept at the time of the founder, afterwards were suppressed? Resp. Negatively, if namely that obligation was imposed only for the greater convenience of the people. S. C. EE. and RR. 1 March 1872. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 276.

1. "Whether Priests, obligated by reason of Benefice, Chaplaincy, legacy, or stipend to celebrate Mass daily by themselves, can sometimes be free from celebration? 2. When and how often can they be free from the said celebration? 3. Whether on days of lawful vacation they can celebrate Mass for themselves, or others, besides for the Founders? And insofar as affirmatively, 4. Whether, by celebrating for others, they can receive a stipend for a celebration of this kind? 5. Whether on those days on which they are lawfully free from celebration they are bound to have Mass celebrated by others according to the intention of the Founders? 6. Whether priests, as above, obligated to celebrate Mass daily, without however the burden of celebrating by themselves, can sometimes be free from celebration? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, affirmatively, when some reasonable cause concurs. To the 3rd, 4th, and 6th, negatively. To the 5th, it deferred the Resolution." S. C. C. 18 Sept. 1683. And under the day 13 Nov. 1683 it responded as regards the 5th doubt, "that a Resolution will be given in particular cases." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 179; Benedict XIV, Notification 56.

It is prohibited by the Constitution of Innocent XII Nuper, 23 Dec. 1697, to undertake new burdens of Masses, unless satisfaction can be made to those already undertaken within a moderate time, or, if it cannot, the offerers know and consent to this. Moreover the S. C. C., on 17 July 1655, defined a moderate time to be one month. Hence, lest Mass stipends be accumulated too much, several prescriptions are made in the same Constitution. Among other things it is prescribed to rectors of Churches and regular superiors that in a more visible and obvious place there be retained a little table of perpetual and temporal burdens, described in clear and intelligible letters. Likewise that they keep two books, and in one note individual perpetual and temporal burdens, and in the other manual Masses and their fulfillment, and that each year they render an account to their prelates. Benedict XIV, De Syn., bk. 12, ch. 7, nn. 4 and 5; Lacroix nn. 68, 98, 100, 106, 110, 111; Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Stipends of Masses.

In Benefices which are conferred in title, the Beneficiary is not bound to give a stipend according to the measure of the revenues of the Benefice; "but it is enough that the Rector of the Benefice, who can celebrate through another, assign to the celebrating priest the congruous alms according to the custom of the city or province, unless another thing has been provided by the foundation of the Benefice itself." S. C. C. approved by Urban VIII, Const. Cum saepe, 21 June 1625. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 4, p. 39 ff., 537 ff.

"Chaplains legitimately impeded on some day of any week, who satisfy the celebration of Masses through another priest, are not bound to pay to this priest the stipend established for Chaplains, but only the manual alms." S. C. 14 Apr. 1725.

"The whole alms is to be paid (by a parish priest in manual Masses); unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess of the common alms was offered in view of the parish priest himself." S. C. C. 25 July 1874.

A testator left to Church N. 500 scuta, so that from the revenues each year as many Masses would be celebrated as could be celebrated, an alms of three lire having been given for each one. It is asked whether the aforesaid Church could give to the celebrant one lira while retaining the other two for itself? Response was made: "that only the customary alms is owed to the celebrating priest; but the rest yields to the advantage of the Church." S. C. C. 3 Aug. 1638.

Catharina de Saccharo imposed on her heirs the celebration of as many annual Masses in perpetuity, with an alms of three lire for each one, as could be celebrated from the fruits of the inheritance. A part of these came to the Seminary, which asked from the S. C. whether it could give one lira for each Mass. Response was made: affirmatively. 18 July 1699.

Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 15, p. 220 ff.

"Whether a Bishop can reduce burdens of Masses, not yet accepted, without the good pleasure of the Apostolic See, or of this S. C., whenever he has judged the reduction to be necessary (because of the smallness of the legacy) from the fact that the pious place refuses to accept the legacy unless the burden is diminished? Resp. Negatively." S. C. C. 20 June 1682. Cf. Decrees of the same S. C. issued by authority of Urban VIII, 21 June 1625; Const. Nuper of Innocent XII.

V. "Whether and in what way the Decree of the Bishop of Caltanissetta, absolutely prohibiting the priests of his Diocese from receiving books or religious newspapers for Masses to be celebrated or celebrated, is sustained in the case?"

Moreover the aforesaid Bishop had asked concerning that prohibition constituted more severely by himself:

"1. Whether those act illicitly who, although they are not booksellers, nor merchants, or in another way seekers of Masses to be celebrated, but ecclesiastical men, to whom alms of Masses are spontaneously handed by the faithful, and who, for publishing good books or religious newspapers, offer them to Priests to be celebrated, so that thence these may receive books or journals in place of a stipend?"

"2. Whether Priests of this kind act illicitly, who either accept Masses offered to them by the aforesaid Ecclesiastics, or themselves ask that they be celebrated, so that thence for Masses already celebrated they may be able, in place of their stipend, to accept or ask for books or newspapers, since they know from another source, or persuade themselves, that otherwise they will not obtain the same Masses to be celebrated for an effective alms?"

VI. "Whether and in what way are moderators or administrators of religious newspapers to be disapproved who entrust Masses to be celebrated to Priests, with the price corresponding to the newspapers themselves retained from their alms in the case?"

The S. C. C. on 24 Apr. 1875 responded: "To V. The doubt having been reformed: Whether and in what way response must be made to the Bishop of Caltanissetta in the case? Negatively in all things to each."

"To VI. Negatively, provided that nothing is detracted from the will of the founders or offerers concerning the quantity of stipend, the place and time of celebration of Masses, any zealous collection of Masses being excluded, and the one to whom by law it belongs having been informed concerning the celebration of Masses subsequently performed, word having been had with the Most Holy Lord." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 8, p. 653.

"So that a Priest may enjoy a privileged Altar on days not impeded, he ought to celebrate the Mass of the dead and to use black vestments, or for a reasonable cause violet." S. R. C. 16 Feb. 1852.

"A Priest celebrating at a privileged altar by reading a Mass of a Semidouble Feast, Simple, Votive, or of a non-privileged Feria, whether by reason of the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, or of the Station of the Church, or of another Solemnity, enjoys the privilege as if he read a Mass of Requiem permitted by the Rubrics on that day." S. C. Ind. 29 Feb. 1864. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, pp. 42, 45.

A Priest having the personal privilege of a privileged altar satisfies the burden undertaken of celebrating at a privileged altar, although he celebrates at an altar not privileged. S. C. Ind. 16 Feb. 1852.

"He who by whatever reason does not gain the Indulgence of a privileged altar cannot satisfy by applying another plenary Indulgence to the deceased for whom he had been obliged to celebrate at a privileged altar." S. C. Ind. 2 May 1852. Yet "he who on permitted days did not celebrate in vestments of black color at a privileged Altar for acquiring the Plenary Indulgence ought to gain a plenary indulgence for those deceased to whom he applied the fruit of the Mass, as often as on non-impeded days he did not use vestments of black color." S. C. Ind. 22 Feb. 1847. This decree is not opposed to the preceding. For in this latter decree "only to Priests, for whom the question was asked concerning the manner by which they ought to compensate the Indulgence of the Privileged Altar, which they were obligated to apply, and which, erring in good faith, they had not gained, did the Sacred Congregation concede that compensation be made through the application of another Plenary Indulgence as often as they had not gained that of the Privileged Altar." S. C. Ind. 24 July 1885. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 18, p. 94.

On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, besides the solemn Mass, it is not lawful to celebrate another. S. R. C. 19 Dec. 1654. Nor can a read Mass be celebrated in those Churches in which the remaining functions are not performed. 31 Aug. 1839. The Bishop can concede to Regulars one read Mass for the sick who cannot be present at the solemn Mass. 27 March 1773. A regular Superior can celebrate Mass in a private Oratory, or, if it is lacking, in a Church with doors closed, so that he may communicate his subjects for the Paschal precept, if namely the customary functions of Holy Week are not carried out among them. 31 Aug. 1839. Mass is not to be celebrated for preserving the Sacred Host in the Sepulcher in those Churches in which the Most Holy Sacrament is not preserved. 14 Jan. 1659. Rural Parish Priests, destitute of Clerics, after permission has been sought from the Bishop, can celebrate read Mass in their Parishes. If at least three or four Clerics can be had, the functions of Great Week are to be paid in full, with the form of the small Ritual issued by order of Benedict XIII preserved. 31 July 1821. All of the Clergy on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord are bound to communicate from the hand of the celebrant. 22 Sept. 1837. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 492 ff. Cf. Gardell. n. 4583.

Private Masses are prohibited on Holy Saturday according to the ancient practice and doctrine of the Church. S. R. C. 26 Apr. 1692; 11 Feb. 1690; 15 July 1697; 28 July 1821; 22 July 1848.

"As regards regions lacking dawn, the Rubric is understood morally concerning the time which is equivalent and corresponds to Dawn, that is, concerning the beginning of the civil, moral, and usual day, in which men are accustomed to rise early for works according to the received and approved customs of the Regions." Gardell. n. 1007.

"1. The faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day, with which the Holy See is accustomed to distinguish the Ordinaries of Missions, so that they themselves may communicate it to their Missionaries, has raised not a few doubts, which have been proposed to this Sacred Congregation by the same. The reason of doubts of this kind is sought from the very strictness of the clauses which, by order of Alexander VII, were added to the article of the Formulas which treats of this faculty. Wherefore it has seemed opportune, in this present Instruction, to collect the more common rules and principles which are to be had before the eyes in the use of the remembered faculty.

2. No one is ignorant that, from the general rule according to the present discipline of the Church, it is lawful for Priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in the day. Thus Innocent III established: 'We respond that, except on the day of the Lord's Nativity, unless a cause of necessity should persuade, it suffices for a Priest to celebrate only one Mass in a day.' Chap. Consuluisti, On the Celebration of Masses.

3. Therefore in a case of necessity, repetition of Mass on the same day is permitted to Priests. Yet this must be understood, as is discerned from the very words of the Formulas, of permission to celebrate only two Masses, although grave causes should concur which would persuade celebrating a greater number. Once the Prefect of the Mission of the Capuchins of Tunis asked whether, on one and the same day, if necessity urged, he could celebrate more than two Masses, for this reason, that all his Missionaries had been thrown into prisons. And the general Sacred Congregation placed over the Propagation of the Faith responded on 7 August 1684: that he cannot by force of the faculties celebrate beyond two Masses. This had already been answered previously in the general Congregation held before the Most Holy Lord on 17 February 1648; for when an abuse had been set forth which had prevailed among Priests detained in captivity in Algeria, of celebrating three Masses, "the Most Holy Lord... ordered through the said Prefect (of Algeria) that it be enjoined in the name of His Holiness upon the Priests... that since the Apostolic See in the faculties of Missionaries has conceded the power or license of celebrating twice in a day where necessity has required this, henceforth they are not to celebrate beyond two Masses." The same was repeated in the years 1818 and 1820 to the Apostolic Prefect of Tunis.

4. Necessity therefore is the only title from which the faculty is made for Priests of saying two Masses. First however it is expedient to observe with Verricelli that "this necessity is not to be taken from the side of the scarcity of Priests, but from the side of the spiritual necessity of the people and the rarity of Priests." On Apostolic Missions, Tit. IV, q. 98, D. 18, n. 201. With this principle posited, it is easy to draw out certain negative rules concerning the use of the faculty of which there is question.

5. And first indeed it is evident that he would not think rightly who would say that Mass can be repeated on suppressed feast days, on which the people are not bound to hear Mass, as the Sacred Congregation warned in the year 1837 in these words: "The matter having been maturely weighed, from the words of the formula itself it appeared sufficiently clearly that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated festivities. For since in the remembered formula it is declared that the faculty is valid if necessity urges, it follows that, from this title alone that those days were once festive, Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same Priest."

6. Secondly. Likewise repetition of Mass is interdicted 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 had narrated the custom that had grown up in his Vicariate of permitting the repetition of Mass in the camps of magnates; but since he did not think that in these circumstances there was that necessity which is required by the Formulas, he sought, both by reason of custom and by reason of the moral utility which came thence, that authority be made to him for permitting it. But the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition judged that, according to the things set forth, it was not expedient. And when the Apostolic Vicar had added that some Priests, by a faculty previously had from his Predecessor, were pursuing the repetition of Mass, the Supreme Sacred Congregation decreed that the faculty was to be revoked, insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg judged that this could prudently be done.

7. Thirdly. From Resolutions of this kind it is inferred that custom is not a sufficient title that the same Priest can offer the Holy Sacrifice twice on one and the same day. This also agrees with what Benedict XIV taught in Const. Declarasti Nobis, given on 16 March 1746 to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon. "Only we inquire," says the Pontiff, "whether that custom has acquired for itself the character of prescription or presumption, and we judge each to be false and foreign." And as regards prescription, he says: "For if according to civil laws holy things cannot be prescribed, it is absurd from every side to assert that something has been obtained or required by prescription which is adverse to the inviolable sanctions of the universal Church, which the Council of Trent commanded all Priests to observe in the celebration of Masses." But concerning presumption he adds: "But, the other things passed over, we submit that this could be understood of those privileges which could have been granted by the Apostolic See, if someone had asked for them, but not of those things which, when they are asked for, are by custom altogether denied custom, lest presumption have more strength and weight than truth." Hence it is that, when the Sacred Congregation has known that in some place the custom of repeating Mass without necessity had grown up, it did not omit to reprove a custom of this kind as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of Bishops for eliminating it.

8. Fourthly. Nor even the poverty of Presbyters is able to prove the repetition of Mass, as has been indicated from Verricelli, loc. cit. A certain Archbishop of Ireland in the year 1688 asked: "Whether from the sole cause of poverty Regulars can 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: and when it had been reported in particular Congregations of Propaganda Fide held both on 7 March 1743 and on 28 July 1750 that an abuse of this kind still flourished in Ireland, because many Priests were using the faculty of repeating Mass for no other cause except that they might receive richer alms, and thence sustain themselves more conveniently, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: "Let Priests be gravely warned not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in a day so that they may have a more ample and richer stipend." And by Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolicum Ministerium, 30 May 1753, section 11, it is called an intolerable abuse that the faculty is made for some Priest of repeating Mass to this end, that by a double alms he might sustain himself more decently. Only, that in some way it might consult for the poor Religious of that Kingdom, who had complained concerning a similar prohibition made by the provincial Synod of Tuam in the year 1817 because of the damage thence arising, the alms being taken away from them which they were accustomed to receive on the occasion of Mass at the church doors, since they themselves lived from the offerings of the faithful, the Sacred Congregation willed that Bishops be warned that "in imparting by Apostolic authority to Priests the license of celebrating two Masses on feast days of precept because of causes of necessity approved by Apostolic Constitutions, they have account of Regular Priests, and especially of those who dwell in poor monasteries." For the rest, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that "from general practice it is not conceded to Presbyters to receive an alms for the second Mass, even if the matter concerns those who, furnished with a parochial duty, cannot obtain a stipend for the first Mass because they are bound to apply it for the people," as was notified by circular letters of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide on 15 October 1863 to Ordinaries of Missions, any pretext whatever for the abuse of repeating Mass in view of a stipend has already been removed. Nevertheless, account having been had of the circumstances of certain particular Missions, the Most Holy Father deigned to make authority, as is established from the said circular Letters, for their Ordinaries of permitting "that, a just and grave cause intervening, Priests subject to them can and may receive a stipend even for a second Mass to be celebrated on the same day."

9. Fifthly. Finally it is necessary to note that repetition of Mass is interdicted to a Priest whenever another Priest can be had who can satisfy the necessity of the people, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the cited Constitution Declarasti Nobis. And hence it is that, before repetition of Mass is admitted, it must be seen whether some remedy from those constituted by law is at hand for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and first the Parish Priest himself is bound to supply a stipend to another Priest; but his inability being posited, the people are bound; and finally, if neither could the people be compelled to this on account of poverty, the Ordinary would be bound to supply. Benedict XIV, loc. cit.; Vote of Cardinal Zelada, Thesaur. Resolutionum, T. 37, in the cause of Derthusen, 26 Aug. 1768.

10. Thus far concerning cases in which repetition of Mass is prohibited. As regards the cases in which the necessity required for this concurs, these are found set forth in Const. Declarasti Nobis. In this Constitution there is first considered, according to the unanimous consent of Theologians, that repetition of Mass is permitted to the Priest "who obtains two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present for the Parish Priest celebrating on feast days because of the very great distance of places." And this is the first and more common case; the other, which is there recounted, is "when there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated, and to which the whole people together cannot come."

11. In these cases Mass can be repeated even by those who are not endowed with the faculty through the Formulas which are customarily conceded through the Sacred Congregation placed over the Propagation of the Faith, since common law itself concedes this, always nevertheless dependently on the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to pass sentence both concerning true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying canonical remedies (section 9). In reality, these means having been indicated, Benedict XIV adds: "The things said thus far rest also on general canonical sanctions." Indeed, the opinion of Theologians is concordant, as Benedict XIV himself also observes, that in the case of one Parish Priest with two parishes, "the Parish Priest not only can, but plainly is bound to celebrate Mass twice on the same day." De Syn. Dioec., bk. 6, ch. 8, n. 2. From these things it easily follows that the article of the Formulas, since it is facultative, is extended also to other cases of necessity not considered in common law; for otherwise that article would become useless, at least for those places in which parishes are canonically erected, with common law itself disposing for these parishes. This agrees with what Benedict XIV teaches in the work De Sacros. Missae Sacrificio, bk. 3, ch. 5, n. 4, in which, after he had asserted that "the case which truly occurs is that when a Parish Priest has two parishes," etc., he proceeds in these words: "Nor nevertheless do we will anything prejudged concerning other cases which occur in Missions, for which provision has been made by conceding to Missionaries the faculty of celebrating Mass several times on the same day; likewise concerning other cases in which either because of the distance of places, or because of the fewness of Priests, or the persecution of infidels, lest the faithful lack Mass, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by Priests." And concerning causes of this kind indeed, which have place in Missions, for which the faculty is given to Superiors of Missions, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide was speaking in the year 1832, when it gave an opportune warning to a certain Philippopolitan Missionary, who was not repeating Masses although he presided over various Christian communities. Namely, Mass repetition having been enjoined upon him, even from the mandate of the general Congregation, it was added: "But if you ask why those clauses of rigor 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 other cases concerning which there is question, as would be the necessity of administering Viaticum to the sick in each parish, and in other cases of this kind the prescribed cautions ought to have place."

12. And in cases of this kind, namely less frequent ones, in the use of this faculty Bishops and Missionaries have repeatedly seemed to hesitate, doubting especially concerning the sufficiency of causes which would be required according to the clauses added to the faculty. But truly the cases which can happen in Missions in this matter are so many and so various that they can hardly be foreseen easily, and much less reduced to determined rules; for judgment concerning them can vary according to the diverse 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 for the most part been remitted to the prudent judgment of the Superior of the Mission.

13. And first indeed a rule was often requested concerning the number of the faithful which would be enough that Mass could be repeated. In the Constitution Apostolicum Ministerium issued for England, it is said that a faculty of this kind can be employed "when the number of those who on feast days are bound to assist at Sacred things exhibits such necessity that unless power of celebrating two Masses on the same day is conceded to some Priest, many would not satisfy the command of the Church." Yet a general norm of this kind does not remove every doubt concerning the number necessary for repetition. The same can be said concerning a certain negative response of the Holy Inquisition given in the year 1688 to Capuchin Missionaries in Greece. These had asked: "Whether a Missionary Priest, dwelling alone in a place, could celebrate two Masses on Sundays and feast days for fifteen or twenty persons who, legitimately impeded, were not able to be present at the first Mass;" and the Supreme Holy Inquisition on 28 January of the same year decreed: it is not lawful. But if the number of twenty faithful is not judged enough for Mass to be repeated, it can further be asked what minimum number suffices.

14. But concerning a doubt of this kind, as concerning those things which regard distance, the Sacred Congregation has had it in custom that these things are to be resolved by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries of Missions on 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 Mauritania generally asked that it be declared what number of faithful there ought to be who would be deprived of Mass, so that Mass could be repeated; and the General Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide on 16 November responded: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Prefect. Similarly the Bishop of St. Louis in the United States of America in the year 1828, having set forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their own conscience because of the clauses of the formulas, asked: "Whether whenever thirty or fifty faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice." But by order of Leo XII, by letters given on 13 March, it was rescripted: "You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind, and, without being moved by the rigor of the words, He (His Holiness) commits it to your conscience and prudence that you judge in which cases, with account had of the circumstances of your diocese, grave causes are to be judged present for imparting to Priests the faculty of which there is question. But where you shall have judged these causes grave according to your conscience and prudence, His Holiness kindly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt."

15. A similar response also was given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who had proposed a doubt about distance thus: "In this region by ancient custom a license of binating is sometimes conceded because of moral necessity, although the nearer parish is not distant beyond the space of half a league; it is asked whether rightly?" The Sacred Congregation responded by letters of 31 July: It being premised that it is the duty of Bishops, according to their powers, to take care that there be no need to use this faculty for relieving the necessities of the faithful, a general practice to be observed in individual cases cannot be assigned. Wherefore in particular cases as above, the supply of Presbyters being lacking, and all other circumstances maturely weighed, it must be defined by the prudent judgment of the Superior whether in that case there concur grave circumstances of things, which Doctors hand down as effecting a case of necessity (as the proposed one seems), in which there is place for dispensation from the universal precept concerning the repetition of the Sacrifice by the same Presbyter on the same day, and for the faculty of binating to be bestowed; which, from the words of the Apostolic Indult itself, it is especially clear that he ought to use altogether sparingly. And this instruction was sent in the same words to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, in whose name various doubts concerning repetition of Mass had been proposed; for it was rescripted to him on 28 September that, his questions having been considered, the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction should be given which... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg obtained under the day 31 July in the year 1851.

16. For the rest, among various responses which remit to the judgment of the Superior the measuring of the gravity of causes, some deserve particular mention; of this kind are those which, while they follow the customary rule of remitting to the Superior's judgment the estimation of causes, at the same time indicate in some manner the kind or degree of necessity which repetition of Mass demands, and repeatedly temper somewhat the fear and soften the excessive anxiety of mind which those clauses had created for Bishops and Missionaries, by which this faculty is restricted in the Formulas. One of responses of this kind was given in the year 1848 to a Bishop in the United States of America; for by letters given on 9 May it was rescripted thus: I come to your request concerning the mode of interpreting the necessity which is required for the lawful use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day.... Let Your Amplitude therefore know that necessity of this kind, concerning which the discourse is, is indeed true, but is understood as moral; not however absolute, concerning which therefore to judge in individual cases depends on prudent judgment, after the circumstances have been inspected.

Therefore you must beware in this matter of excessive anxiety in judging, lest the aforesaid faculty seem to have been conceded in vain or to have to be reduced to act in almost no case. More worthy of note is the declaration which was 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 concerning which there is question, because of the grave conditions by which it is constrained, he had implored a more ample faculty from the Apostolic See of making provision for Presbyters... that on Sundays and feasts of precept they can 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, response was made in this way: Such is the estimation of your virtue and prudence, that Our Most Holy Lord ordered that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind; and if you shall have judged it to be necessary, or vehemently useful to the faithful, that Priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day, you ought not to be moved by the rigor of the words by which the rescript seems to be contained. Therefore His Holiness commits to the prudence and conscience of Your Lordship to judge concerning that necessity and the gravity of causes; and in these circumstances, he kindly declared that you have the faculty, through the remembered Rescript, of making provision for Priests that they celebrate Mass twice.

17. The same rule, of committing to the judgment or charity of Superiors of Missions the application of general principles to practical cases, has also been 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 causes which may persuade the use of the faculty, great account must be had of all the conditions and state of the faithful. An argument of this matter is the response given by the S. C. in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the Tripolitan Mission. This man, uncertain because of the clauses, had asked "for what number of slaves or free persons he could precisely celebrate a second Mass, since sometimes the case was given that in the bath outside Tripoli not more than ten or fifteen slaves present at the Sacrifice were present... and whether, in the lack of Presbyters, for those alone a second Mass could be celebrated on feast days." Now indeed, although the Resolution given in the same year by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition for a similar case did not stand in the way, as was noted above in section 13, the Sacred Congregation placed over Propaganda Fide on 5 October responded: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Vice-Prefect. Nor should it be marvelous if this Sacred Congregation indulged a more benign interpretation; for the matter concerned slaves, who, because of their own condition, deserved peculiar indulgence, since the one consolation perhaps for them was the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Another argument of this kind of benignity, with account had of circumstances, was supplied by the Holy Inquisition in the year 1860; for although on 20 June it responded to the Apostolic Vicar of the same Kingdom adjacent to China that the desire of Neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist twice or three times in the year was not of itself a most urgent cause in the case concerning which there is question, that is, of repeating Mass according to the faculty; nevertheless it added: but, all the circumstances of places and persons having been weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Reverend Father Lord Vicar Apostolic. From these things it is drawn out that those causes which of themselves and therefore in many places are not grave can become grave in other places because of the circumstances which accompany the case.

18. These are the principles which have been had before the eyes as regards the faculty of repeating Mass, and which indeed will be able to render Ordinaries of Missions tranquil in the exercise of the same faculty. But although in this matter deference is customarily made to the wise judgment of Ordinaries of Missions, nevertheless from the things said thus far it appears with how much caution they ought to use it, since their conscience always remains burdened in the legitimate exercise of an extraordinary faculty of this kind. Nevertheless here there will help what the Sacred Congregation rescripted in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria: that the clauses employed in the Formulas are not to be understood in the extreme rigor, with the principle kept before the eyes that the Apostolic See concedes the said faculty for the spiritual good of the faithful, with the desire that all may easily fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.

19. It remains now to speak concerning the rite or the mode by which Mass can be repeated. It has always been prescribed by the Sacred Congregation to Missionaries, and by Benedict XIV himself, that he who repeats Mass ought not to take the customary ablutions of the chalice because of the fast, so that, "if in the first Mass after the reception of the Body and Blood he has accepted the pouring in, he ought not to celebrate a second Mass in the aforesaid cases" (Council of Nimes, 1284, at Benedict XIV, De SS. Sacrif. Miss., bk. 3, ch. 5, n. 4), that is, even in those cases in which the people would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrifice on feast days. But although in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Sacred Rites in the Ebusitan case on 16 September 1815 it had been prescribed that there be only one chalice which he ought to use who celebrates two Masses, nevertheless, since the execution of a Decree of this kind was subject to difficulties by no means light when celebration had to be done in two churches remote from each other, the same Sacred Order in general assemblies held on 12 September 1857 rescripted, for the moderation of the said Decree: that the use of two chalices can be permitted in the case. The Instruction which is added here, drawn up by order of the same Sacred Congregation of Sacred Rites, regards the mode of purifying the chalice which will have served for the first Mass.

From the buildings of the said Sacred Congregation, 24 May 1870." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 8 ff.; Vol. 6, p. 345 ff.; Lucidi, ch. 3, sec. 2, n. 378 ff.

"When a Priest on the same day must celebrate two Masses in distant places, in the first, while he takes the divine Blood, let him drink it most diligently. Then let him place the chalice upon the corporal and cover it with the pall, and with hands joined in the middle of the altar let him say: Quod ore sumpsimus, etc.; and then, the little vessel of water being brought near, let him wash his fingers, saying: Corpus tuum, and wipe them. These things having been done, let him cover the chalice still remaining upon the corporal with the pall drawn down, as is customary, namely first with the purificatory linen, then with the paten and pall, and finally with the veil. After these things let him pursue the Mass, and, the last Gospel having been completed, let him again stand in the middle of the altar, and, the chalice having been uncovered, inspect whether any of the divine Blood has or has not settled at the bottom, which will happen for the most part. For although the sacred species have first been carefully drunk, nevertheless while they are taken, since the particles which are around are left everywhere upward, only after the chalice has been set down do they return to the bottom. Therefore, if some drop of the divine Blood still remains, let it again and diligently be drunk, and indeed from the same part from which it was first taken. This is by no means to be omitted, because the sacrifice morally endures, and with the species of wine still remaining it must be completed by divine precept.

Afterwards let the Priest pour into the chalice itself at least as much water as he had first placed of wine, and, after moving it around, let him pour it from the same part from which he had drunk the Sacred Blood into the prepared vessel. Then let him wipe the chalice itself with the purificatory linen, and finally cover it, as is done at other times, and depart from the altar. The sacred vestments having been deposited and thanksgiving completed, the water poured from the chalice, according to the circumstances of things, is either to be preserved until the next day (if namely the Priest is going to return there again to have Mass), and in the second purification poured into the chalice, or, absorbed by cotton or tow, burned, or left in the sacrarium, if there is one, to be dried, or poured into the piscina.

But since the chalice which the Priest first used has already been purified, if he needs that very one for the other Mass, let him carry it with him; but otherwise in the other Mass he will be able to use a different chalice."

Since the above Instruction of the S. R. C. regards only the case in which a Priest is going to celebrate two Masses in distant places on the same day, it has seemed worthwhile from the Commentaries of Bartholomaeus Gavanti and Cajetan Maria Merati to add here the rite to be observed by a Priest when he must offer each Mass in the same church.

"Therefore in this case the Priest, after diligently drinking the Blood of the Lord in the first Mass, the customary purification having been omitted, covering the chalice with the paten and the paten with the pall and leaving it upon the corporal, will say with hands joined: Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine, etc. Then he will wash the fingers with which he touched the Most Holy Sacrament in some clean vessel prepared for this on the altar, meanwhile saying: Corpus tuum, Domine, etc.; and, his fingers having been wiped with the purificatory, he will cover the chalice with the veil, and, veiled, place it upon the extended corporal. The Mass having been finished, if there is no sacristy in the church, he will leave the chalice in the same manner upon the altar; but otherwise he will carry it into the sacristy, and there place it upon a corporal or pall in some decent and closed place until the second Mass; in that Mass, since he ought to use the same chalice, he will again carry it with him to the altar, and place it back upon the extended corporal. But when in the second Mass the Priest has come to the Offertory, the veil having been removed from the chalice, he will place this for a little while toward the Epistle corner, but not outside the corporal; and the oblation of the Host having been made, he will take care not to wipe the chalice with the purificatory, but, leaving it within the corporal, he will raise it slightly and cautiously place wine and water in it, lest some drops rebound to the lips of the chalice itself, which then, by no means wiped within, he will offer in the customary manner."

"1. Whether a Parish Priest who rules two Parishes, and has the faculty of celebrating twice in the day, is bound to apply his Mass to each Parish, even if the revenues are slight? 2. Whether a Parish Priest who in the same Parish by faculty celebrates twice on the same day ought to apply each Mass gratis? 3. Whether vicars and other priests not having care of souls, if ever by faculty they celebrate twice in the day in a Parish, hospitals, etc., ought to apply gratis? He responded: to the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, negatively, the prohibition of receiving an alms for the second Mass remaining firm; to the 3rd, negatively, insofar as they do not have care of souls, the prohibition of receiving an alms for the second Mass always remaining firm." S. C. C. 25 Sept. 1858. Lucidi, Vol. 3, p. 380, 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 69 ff.

"That some remuneration can be permitted (in the case of repeated celebration of Mass) by the prudent judgment of the Bishop in view of labor and inconvenience, any alms whatever for the application of the Mass being excluded." S. C. C. 23 March 1861.

"Whether on the night of the Nativity, after the first Mass has been sung, it is lawful immediately to celebrate the other two, and communicate the faithful? Resp. By no means is it lawful, but it is altogether to be prohibited." S. R. C. 20 Apr. 1641; 7 Dec., 23 March 1686, etc.

"Whether on the night of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ it is lawful for any Priest whatever to celebrate private Mass before dawn, without an indult of the Apostolic See in the case? And insofar as negatively, whether a contrary practice, where it wished to be introduced or had already been introduced, must be declared an abuse and directly opposed to the laws of the Church, so that it is to be cut off by the Bishop? Resp. To the 1st, it is not lawful. To the 2nd, that the contrary custom is an abuse, and let the Bishop take care that it be cut off." S. R. C. 18 Sept. 1781.

"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 illness, or another reasonable cause, power has been made by the Holy See of celebrating a votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin." Resp. negatively according to decrees at other times. S. R. C. 28 Apr. 1866.

"Whether a priest can celebrate only two Masses on the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Resp. Affirmatively, or that a Priest can according to his own judgment celebrate only two Masses on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, and thus it declared on 19 June 1875." S. R. C. "A Priest who celebrates only one Mass should read the Mass which corresponds approximately to the hour according to the peculiar Rubrics of the same day. And thus it rescripted and commanded to be observed." S. R. C. 19 June 1875.

In the kingdoms of Spain and Lusitania, on the feast of the Commemoration of All the Dead, it has been conceded to individual priests dwelling there to celebrate three Masses, as is established from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Quod expensis, 26 Aug. 1748. Now indeed in that Indult it was provided that Priests of Aragon for the third Mass, and all the others of other regions for the second and third, can obtain plainly no alms, even if spontaneously offered. These things having been posited, it was doubted: "Whether it is prohibited to priests comprehended in the Indult of which there is question to receive for the first Mass on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed an alms greater than that which was predefined by the synodal tax, or by the custom of the place, although spontaneously offered in the case?" In the great contest of those opining diversely, the S. C. rescripted: "Affirmatively." Almeria, Alms, 2 March 1861. Lucidi, Vol. 1, p. 468, 3rd ed.

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, N. 192.

A dormitory cannot be had above a chapel in which Mass is celebrated. S. R. C. 11 May 1641. It cannot be celebrated in chapels under bedrooms (camere da letto), unless a canopy is had over the altar, or a double vault (doppia volta). S. R. C. 12 Sept. 1840. Indeed, although a canopy is present, let the custody of the Most Holy Sacrament be removed, if it can be done. S. R. C. 12 March 1856.

"Whether a Bishop can, a just cause intervening, concede the faculty of celebrating in private oratories in the case? Resp. Negatively, unless nevertheless great and urgent causes are present, and only by way of an act." S. C. C. 20 Dec. 1855.

"When the sacrosanct Sacrament of the Eucharist is sought by sick Christians, it is asked: 1. Whether Missionaries are allowed to celebrate the sacrifice of Mass in the houses of the aforesaid sick? 2. Whether this proceeds also when danger of death urges, but Viaticum can be carried, at least secretly? 3. Whether it is lawful at least when it cannot be carried even secretly? Resp. To the 1st, it is not lawful. To the 2nd, it is not lawful. To the 3rd, that 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 decent, lest the sick person be deprived of Viaticum." S. C. de P. F. 14 Dec. 1668.

"The Parish Priest knows that Sacred Viaticum can very difficultly be supplied to a sick person near death unless he can carry the Most Holy Sacrament from a private Oratory. And insofar as affirmatively, whether in such a case he can celebrate, even with the Indultary being absent by necessity? Resp. Affirmatively, even with the Indultary absent." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1856.

"A Church is understood as that which is built especially to this end, that it may serve for the public use of the faithful people. But a public Chapel is that which, although it has entrance on a public way, nevertheless does not seem destined so much to the free use of the faithful people as to the convenience of some family or College." S. R. C. 22 July 1855.

Regular Superiors cannot admit "for celebrating in their Churches the others of their own or another Religion, vagabonds or pilgrims, unless the letters of obedience or assignment of their Superiors and testimonials of promotion to the priesthood have been diligently examined; but as regards secular priests, unless testimonial letters have been seen, signed by the Vicar general or forane of the Bishop of the place." S. I. C. 11 Aug. 1649; S. C. EE. and RR. 14 March 1879.

"Whether a consecrated Church which served for military stations and watches for two days is to be judged profaned, and therefore needs the reconciliation prescribed by the Roman Pontifical? Resp. That for caution it is to be reconciled." S. R. C. 27 Feb. 1847.

"Altar stones or portable altars which consist of true hard and compact stone, even if not marble, ought to be held suitable; but those which have been made from pumice stone, or from gypsum, or another similar material, are altogether illicit. But as regards altars whose sepulcher or confession was dug not in the middle of the stone but in its front, they are not to be admitted, as not conforming to the prescriptions of the Roman Pontifical." S. R. C. 24 Nov. 1885.

"The consecration both of a stable Altar and of a Traveling or portable Altar, as regards the essential prayers, rites, solemnities, is altogether the same; in this however it differs, that the portable Altar, or stone, in the middle of which the Sacred Relics are stored, is anointed with sacred unction only on the surface; but on the contrary in a fixed Altar not to be transferred, another sacred unction is employed, by which the stone is joined in the corners and connected with the lower support or structure; and by this method not one stone, but the whole Altar, is judged consecrated. Therefore a portable Altar is execrated if either it has been enormously broken, or the sepulcher of the Relics violated; but a fixed altar is execrated even if, without violation of the sepulcher, the stone alone is removed from the support. Thus Alexander III, chap. Ad haec, On the Consecration of a Church or Altar: 'To this, if the Altar has been moved, or only that stone placed beneath which contains the seal has been broken or enormously diminished, it must be consecrated anew.' And in chap. Quod, same title: 'But an altar in which the table, to which the blessing of consecration is applied by pontifical ministry, has been removed or enormously broken, ought not undeservedly to be consecrated.' And although there are not lacking those who think that a fixed Altar loses consecration even if the whole Altar is transferred from the place in which it was built and anointed with sacred ceremonies to another place, nevertheless the common opinion is that in this case a new consecration is not necessary. The reason is that although a fixed Altar in this seems to differ from a portable altar, that the latter is transferable from one place to another, but the former is not so, and therefore is called fixed and immovable, nevertheless this difference is merely extrinsic, accidental, and respective to the place itself rather than 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 joining of the Table with its lower structure, or base, to which the Table therefore must necessarily be united; where on the contrary a portable Altar by its nature imports being separated from a base; for because of this it is portable, because 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 joining, that is, in the mensa or table united with the base; and it imports fixation in such a place for this reason, that he who had it constructed willed it there: which therefore is something extrinsic and accidental to the Altar itself. For that same one could have been built elsewhere. Wherefore since the Altar is supposed to preserve the same joining, namely of the Table with its base, notwithstanding its transfer from one place to another, it must be said that it still retains its own 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 Rules of Law in VI. Therefore, so that that word 'moved' may be verified, it is not necessary that the Table have been transferred from one place to another, but it suffices that it has been separated from its base; and thus through this the Altar needs a new consecration. Hence the Gloss both to Canon Si motum and to Chapter Ad Haec, I, v. Altar; Panormitanus in the same place and others, by Altar understand the Altar Table itself which is connected with its lower structure; but by moved they understand the supervening disjunction of the same Table, or even of the consecrated Stone, from the lower structure itself; so that the sense of that Text: If the Altar has been moved, etc., is this: If the Table itself, or the consecrated Stone of the Altar, has been disjoined from its lower structure: the Altar must be consecrated anew. But if the Table which we call the mensa, placed upon a stone and stable Altar, although it is of such size that it surpasses or at least equals the subject structure, nevertheless had never been joined and united with the lower support, and in some way bound together in the corners through sacred unction, it would not lose Consecration by removal and translation from place to place, because in this case it would have no other character except that of a portable Altar, which is execrated only either through enormous fracture or through violation of the sepulcher of the Relics. Therefore since in the proposed species of fact the matter is of a fixed and stable Altar, and the superimposed Stone of the great Altar was removed from the lower support to which it had been joined through Sacred unction, it plainly follows that through removal of this kind the Altar was execrated and needs a new Consecration, as the S. R. C. declared." Note of Gardell. n. 4562.

Pius IX, 26 May 1867, by special Rescript as regards a Privileged Altar declared "that it suffices for constituting the quality of a fixed Altar that in the middle of a stable and immovable Altar, although not consecrated, a stone even removable be placed." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 100. The S. I. C., 20 March 1846, likewise declared as regards a Privileged Altar: by a fixed or local Altar "the S. C. understood indeed a fixed altar, which cannot be moved from the place, but not one whose upper part or mensa is of whole stone or so joined with lime that the consecrated stone cannot be removed; otherwise, when an altar which had been conceded privileged because of the image of some Saint was destroyed, after new construction it would need a new privilege." But by a portable Altar "it understood an Altar, as it is called viaticum, which consists only of one whole stone of such magnitude that it can contain the foot of the chalice with the paten at least for the greater part, or which is transferred from one place to another." Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Indulgence 6.

"Whether sacred vestments of gold color can serve for the colors white, green, and red?" S. R. C. 29 March 1851 responded: "Negatively."

1. Whether vestments of yellow color can be employed for whatever color, black excepted? 2. Whether vestments made from silk and woven with other colors and flowers, so that the primary and predominant color is scarcely discerned, can be used mixedly, at least for white, red, and green? 3. Whether chasubles, stoles, and maniples can be made from linen cloth, or cotton commonly called percale, dyed or painted with the prescribed colors? Resp. To the 1st, negatively. To the 2nd, likewise negatively. To the 3rd, let the Rubrics and the use of all Churches be observed, which do not admit chasubles of this kind. S. R. C. 22 Sept. 1837.

"Can yellow color, both silken and woven from gold, be employed for white, green, red, and violet, especially in poorer churches not able to make vestments of the individual colors prescribed by the Rubric? Resp. As regards vestments of yellow color, negatively; as regards vestments woven from gold, affirmatively, the color violet nevertheless excluded." S. R. C. 5 Dec. 1868.

"Can silver cloth be permitted for vestments of white color? Resp. Affirmatively." S. R. C. 20 Nov. 1885.

That the cincture can be of the color of the vestments. S. R. C. 8 June 1709.

"Whether it is lawful to use yellow or blue color in the Sacrifice of Mass and exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 16 March 1833; 23 Sept. 1837.

Whether the use of blue color in sacred vestments can be permitted for white color, as is customarily done in Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or rather for violet? Resp. Negatively in all things, and the use of blue color is to be eliminated as an abuse." S. R. C. 23 Feb. 1839.

"Since in Spain at the present time many Churches are poor, it is asked: Whether at least in them it can be permitted in the celebration of Masses both for Holy Confessors and Martyrs that one and the same Vestment be employed, woven from two colors, namely white and red? And similarly another one and the same Vestment composed of violet and green colors for the days to which the color violet or green agrees according to the Rubrics? Resp. Let him have recourse to the Ordinary.... And thus it rescripted, declared, indulged, and commanded to be observed." S. R. C. 23 May 1846, to 7.

"Whether it is lawful for celebrating Mass to use ornaments whose texture is glass mixed with gold or silver? Resp. In the Vote of the Master of Ceremonies, or Negatively to the proposed doubt, and therefore it is not lawful to use the aforesaid ornaments." S. R. C. 11 Sept. 1847.

"Whether chasubles made of wool are permitted? Resp. The use of churches does not admit woolen chasubles." S. R. C. 18 Dec. 1877.

Let every priest sacrifice only in a gold or silver chalice, or at least a tin chalice. Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis for the Italo-Greeks.

Whether chalices made from aluminum can be employed in the Sacrifice of Mass? The S. R. C. on 1 Sept. 1866 responded: "Nothing is to be innovated." But on 6 Dec. 1866, the Most Holy Lord permitted chalices and patens thus made, truly under the form and conditions prescribed in the attached Instruction. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 6, p. 589; Vol. 2, p. 238.

"1. Whether Chalices for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be made, whose Cups are made from metal, brass, or copper? 2. Whether Cups of this kind, even if gilded, can lawfully be consecrated by the Bishop? 3. Whether it can be tolerated that Churches which already have the aforesaid Chalices can retain the use of the same? 4. Whether in ministering Holy Communion to the faithful it is lawful in place of linen Communion cloths to use little Tablets of metal, or whether a use of this kind can be tolerated in those Dioceses in which it was introduced? Resp. To the 1st, let the rubrics be observed. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the 1st. To the 3rd, that it is an abuse to be interdicted, a fitting time nevertheless being assigned so that provision may be made concerning other Chalices. To the 4th, that it is not to be interdicted; nevertheless let it be signified to the Most Reverend Lord Bishop of Alexandria that the use of linen Communion cloths is not to be disapproved." S. R. C. 20 March 1875.

Whether sacred vessels not blessed or consecrated, and already employed, are then to be blessed or consecrated? Resp. Negatively. S. R. C. 22 Sept. 1703. Gardell. n. 3663.

"Although the S. R. C., under the day 15 March 1664, reproved the custom which perhaps had prevailed somewhere, of making amices, albs, altar cloths, and also corporals and palls from a certain cloth composed of linen and very fine 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 used, either for sacrificing or for the use of altars, except those made from simple cotton. To root out this corruption, which very many try to adorn with the name of custom, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals placed over the protection of the sacred Rites turned their attention. Therefore, solicitous that what from the beginnings of the Church, as regards sacred vestments and furnishings, was introduced on account of real and mystical significations, be retained, restored, and altogether observed for the future, they declared and decreed that there must be no departure from the ancient custom under any pretext, color, or title whatever, and that the same sacred vestments and furnishings are to be made from linen or hemp, but not from any other material whatever, even if in cleanliness, whiteness, and durability it imitates and equals linen or hemp. Yet, using some indulgence, they permitted that amices, albs, altar cloths, and small cloths, if any are had from cotton, can meanwhile be used until they are worn out; but, when furnishings of this kind must be renewed, they ordered that they are not to be made from another material except from linen or hemp. But they strictly ordered that corporals, palls, and purificators, after the lapse of one month from the publication of the present Decree, be wholly of linen or of hemp, the use of others which remain from cotton being interdicted and forbidden. And thus they decreed and ordered that it be observed in every place, if it pleased Our Most Holy Lord. The Most Holy Lord approved and confirmed the Decree of the S. C., and ordered it, printed in type, to be published. S. R. C. 18 May 1819. Cf. Gardell. n. 4563.

"Whether in the general Decree of Pope Pius VII of holy memory, by which the use of sacred furnishings serving the sacrifice of Mass and made from cotton is interdicted, there are also comprehended chasubles woven from the same cotton? Resp. They are not comprehended." S. R. C. 23 May 1835. Cf. N. 393 and the following Resolution.

"The S. C. R. has often declared illicit the use of chasubles and other similar vestments made from cotton cloth or linen cloth, or even from wool." S. R. C. 28 July 1881. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 144.

"Whether Priests in the sacrifice of Mass can use a silken cincture? Resp. More fittingly they use a linen cincture." S. R. C. 22 Jan. 1701.

"Whether cinctures of wool can lawfully be employed in celebrating the Most Holy Mass? Resp. Nothing prevents the cinctures mentioned in the prayers from being employed." S. R. C. 23 Dec. 1862.

"Whether it is lawful everywhere on earth, in the fringes and sleeves of albs and other vestments, under a transparent veil to put a red ground, or whether it is a privilege peculiar to Italy, Spain, etc.? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 17 Aug. 1833.

"Since, upon the reporting of some Most Reverend Bishops and other ecclesiastical and lay men, it was not hidden from the Holy See that certain Dioceses in England, France, Germany, and Belgium had changed the form of sacred vestments which are employed in the celebration of the sacrosanct sacrifice of Mass, and had conformed them to the style which they call Gothic, with indeed a more elegant workmanship.... The Sacred Congregation placed over the protection of lawful Rites did not omit to institute an accurate examination concerning changes of this kind.

Now from this examination, although the same Sacred Congregation well knew that those sacred vestments, bearing before them the Gothic style, especially prevailed in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, nevertheless it equally observed that the Roman Church and other Churches of the Latin rite throughout the world, the Apostolic See by no means protesting, from the sixteenth century, namely from almost the very age of the Council of Trent, even to these our times, had relinquished the use of them; and therefore, while the same discipline endures, and the Holy See has not been consulted, it judged that nothing can be innovated, as the Supreme Pontiffs have often taught in their Constitutions, wisely admonishing that these things, as contrary to the approved custom of the Church, can often produce disturbances and bring the minds of the faithful into wonder. But since the Congregation of Sacred Rites judges that the reasons which persuaded the present change can be of some weight, hence, the oracle of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX having been heard, it judged that Your Amplitude should be invited in most loving words that, insofar as changes of this kind have taken place in your Diocese, you would be willing to set forth the reasons themselves which gave cause for them." S. R. C. Aug. 1863.

"Whether and when the Pyx, Purificatories, Ostensoria, or at least the Lunula, which immediately serve the Sacrament more than other things which have their own form of blessing in the Missal, are to be blessed? Resp. The Rubrics are to be observed." S. R. C. 16 Nov. 1649.

"1. Whether the purificatory ought to be blessed? And insofar as affirmatively, 2. What blessing is to be used? To the 1st, negatively. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the preceding case." S. R. C. 7 Sept. 1816.

A small Cross with the Image of the Crucified, placed upon the Tabernacle, is not sufficient while Mass is celebrated; but another Cross ought to be placed in the middle of the Candlesticks. But if a large Statue of the Most Holy Crucified is present on the Altar, it is sufficient, and does not need another Cross. S. R. C. 16 June 1663. The abuse is to be reproved of placing a small Cross scarcely visible either above the Tabernacle or above some smaller tablet situated in the middle of the Altar, in place of the Cross to be placed between the candlesticks, as the Rubric prescribes. S. R. C. 17 Sept. 1822. Cf. Gardell. n. 4590.

"1. Whether the crosses of altars or of Processions are to be blessed by precept? 2. Whether, if they are not by precept, a simple Priest can bless them privately and not solemnly? Resp. To the 1st, negatively. To the 2nd, affirmatively." S. R. C. 12 July 1704.

Cf. N. 311. Cf. also Acta S. Sed. Vol. 12, p. 644; Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. stearin.

"Among the accusations against the Presbyters of your Vicariate there are also recounted that they, in the administration of sacred things, especially in the tremendous Sacrifice of Mass, neglect the Rites established by the Church, add to and subtract from them according to their own will, and form a certain mixed liturgy out of the statutes of the Church and out of other things devised by their own impulse. No one will fail to understand that this manner of acting is to be reproved in the highest degree. For Rites and Ceremonies have been introduced in the Church so that external worship toward God may be exercised with due veneration, so that the sacred mysteries which are performed may be made more august, and so that they may be for the great edification of Christ's faithful, by exciting their piety toward God and the affection of devotion. Hence the Sacrosanct Synod of Trent says thus to this matter, sess. 22, on the sacrifice of Mass, ch. 5: And since the nature of men is such that it cannot easily be raised up to meditation on divine things without external helps, for that reason holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, namely that some things be pronounced in a low voice and others in a higher voice in Mass. Likewise she employed ceremonies, such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, from apostolic discipline and tradition, by which both the Majesty of so great a sacrifice might be commended, and the minds of the faithful, through these visible signs of religion and piety, might be excited to the contemplation of the most lofty things which lie hidden in this sacrifice. Since such are Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies, it follows that they are of the right of the Church, and that it belongs only to her to establish them, just as it belongs to the Ministers of the Church to observe them exactly, especially because in these Rites of the Church there is contained the implicit profession of many Catholic dogmas. Hence also from Liturgies faith is drawn concerning the divinity of the Word and of the Holy Spirit, concerning the truth of the humanity and divinity of Christ, concerning the virginity of the Mother of God, concerning the dignity of Bishops above Presbyters, concerning the necessity of the grace of Christ for works meritorious of eternal life, concerning original sin diffused into all men, concerning the sacrament of Confirmation, concerning the unbloody Sacrifice of Mass, concerning the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, concerning the marvelous transubstantiation which takes place in it, concerning Purgatory, concerning the cult and invocation of the Saints, and concerning many other things; from which it has come about that Theologians have recognized in Liturgies a theological source from which the doctrine of the Church is made manifest to us. Since these things are so, the Tridentine Synod just praised most rightly decreed thus in sess. 7, on the Sacraments in general, canon 12: If anyone shall say that the received and approved Rites of the Catholic Church, customarily employed in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can either be contemned, or be omitted by Ministers at pleasure without sin, or be changed into other new ones by any Pastor of the Church whatsoever, let him be anathema." These things sanctioned in the Synod of Trent are to be opposed against violators of the sacred rites of the Church, and perhaps also against despisers; the authority of the Supreme Pontiffs Pius V, Clement VIII, and Urban VIII, who approved the Roman Missal together with its Rubrics for the universal Church by three published Constitutions, is to be opposed to them; and against the obstinate a stricter manner of acting will have to be used, if that seems agreeable to evangelical prudence, from which those who rule and govern in the Church of Christ ought never to turn aside." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F., Aug. 1827.

"Whether prelates, archbishops, and bishops can be judges for declaring doubts concerning sacred Rites and ceremonies? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 11 June 1605. - "The Ordinary of the place is strictly bound to provide by opportune remedies that the rubrics and decrees of the S. R. C. be duly observed; if any doubt occurs, recourse must be had to the same S. C. for declaration." S. R. C. 17 Sept. 1822.

"Whether any inveterate custom whatever to the contrary can derogate from the Law prescribed by the decrees of the S. C.? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 3 Aug. 1839.

"Only those books are to be employed, and in only those Blessings, which are conformable to the Roman Ritual." Nor in this matter is the dispensation of a Bishop sufficient. S. R. C. 7 Apr. 1832; 23 May 1835; 10 Jan. 1852.

"The S. R. C., as often elsewhere at the request of particular persons, so now at the request of all Churches in the kingdoms of Spain, declared that the said Ceremonial book does not abolish immemorial and laudable customs." 11 June 1605. This has place in whatever kingdoms and places throughout the whole Christian world. 17 June 1606.

"Whether the old customs of this Church, namely those which are opposed to no statute of the Church, have been abrogated by these words of the Rescript: Let the Ceremonial always and by everyone be observed? Resp. Recourse must be had to this S. C. in particular cases." S. R. C. 6 May 1826, Alexandrina. Cf. Gardell. n. 4620; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 142; Vol. 15, p. 507.

"Whether the words: the rubric is to be observed, are to be understood in this sense, that the use of a spoon is prohibited? Resp. Negatively, or that the use of a small spoon is not prohibited." S. R. C. 6 Feb. 1858.

"No foreign Cleric is to be admitted by any Bishop to celebrating divine things and administering the Sacraments without commendatory letters of his Ordinary." Conc. Trid. sess. 23, ch. 16, de R. Cf. N. 387.

A Priest celebrating in another's Church must conform to that Church: 1. when in the same Church a feast is celebrated with solemnity and attendance, S. R. C. 11 June 1701; 29 Jan. 1752; 22 March 1817; 2. when a double feast is celebrated, or one of a Sunday, and the color does not correspond to the proper Office of the Priest celebrating, 7 May 1847; 17 Sept. 1853; 3. when the aforesaid Priest celebrates concerning a Blessed who is not found in the Calendar of the Church in which he celebrates, 7 Sept. 1818; 4. when, supplying the place of the Parish Priest, he celebrates in the aforesaid Church the parochial Mass for the people, 3 May 1846; 5. when he celebrates the conventual Mass in a Church of Nuns, or in another in which there is the obligation of choir, 1 Dec. 1844; 6. when he celebrates Mass with chant, 15 Dec. 1691; 7. besides the preceding cases, in any Church, generally speaking, he must celebrate the Mass corresponding to his proper Office; except on the days on which the rite of his proper Office and the rite of the Church in which he celebrates permit a votive Mass and one of Requiem, and unless the Church has a Privilege that it be otherwise, 20 March 1817; 12 Nov. 1831; 17 Sept. 1853.

"It is lawful hereafter both for the Confessor and for Chaplains only assigned to the service of any nuns whatsoever, to celebrate Masses of the Saints concerning whom they recite the Office, but with the Roman Missal and from the common, not however the proper Masses of the same Saints conceded to various Orders." S. R. C. 20 Nov. 1717, general Decree. - This faculty must be understood for each and all who are bound by duty to celebrate in the churches of those nuns. S. R. C. 11 Feb. 1720.

There are many Regulars and Nuns who have the Privilege that any priest celebrating in their Churches can in absolutely all things use the Missal of the respective Order. Cf. Bouix, De Iure Regul., Vol. 2, p. 195; Schneider, Manuale Sacerdot., Part 2, book 2; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 4, p. 672.

It is not lawful in Masses to add prayers at the choice of the priest, besides the prayers assigned or permitted by the Rubric. S. R. C. 12 Aug. 1854.

In the prayer A cunctis, at the letter N., the patron or titular of that Church where the celebration takes place is to be named; but if he has already been named in the prayer itself, no other is to be named. S. R. C. 23 Sept. 1837; 21 Nov. 1831. If, however, it is celebrated in an Oratory which does not have a Patron or Titular, then the patron of the city or place is to be named. S. R. C. 1840.

On the Sundays of Advent and Lent the collect imposed by command is not to be omitted, except on Palm Sunday, and on the fourth Sunday of Advent when it occurs with the vigil of the Nativity, and likewise on the vigil of Pentecost because of its dignity. S. R. C. 20 Apr. 1822.

If a third Prayer at choice is prescribed, and some Collect is prescribed by the Bishop, the one at choice must not be passed over, but some Prayer at choice is to be recited in the third place; and in the fourth place the one which must be said by order of the Bishop. S. R. C. Aug. 1709. - If from the Rubric a Prayer for the Church or for the Pope is prescribed, and the superior has prescribed a prayer for the Pope, both are always to be said, so that the Rubric and the precept of the superior cannot be satisfied through one prayer. S. R. C. 23 May 1835.

1. Whether in a church of regulars and in other exempt Churches, the collects prescribed by the Ordinary of the place are to be recited? 2. Whether it is lawful for the Clergy of those Churches to cease from reciting them at will, before the Ordinary has ordered it? To the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, negatively. 3 Apr. 1821, by general Decree of the S. R. C.

"In daily Masses of the dead can more than three Prayers be said? And can the second Prayer be changed, namely can there be said, for example, for the father, instead of the one noted beforehand, Deus veniae largitor? Resp. In daily Masses which are celebrated for the dead, more Prayers than three can indeed be said, but care must be taken that they be odd in number, and sometimes another, for example for the father, for the mother, etc., will be substituted without punishment for that Deus veniae largitor, provided that in the last place that one Fidelium is said." S. R. C. 2 Sept. 1741.

"As regards the first Prayer, let the order of the Missal be observed." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1836.

"Whether in daily Masses of requiem a Priest, whether by reason of an alms or of a legacy, privately celebrating for some determined deceased person or for some determined deceased persons, must indiscriminately say as first Prayer, Deus qui inter apostolicos, etc., assigned in the first place in the Missal; or rather, in place of the said first Prayer, is he bound to say another from the various ones placed in the same Missal, which agrees with him or with those determined persons for whom he applies the Mass? Resp. Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second." S. R. C. 16 Sept. 1865.

"Private Masses of requiem, even with the body present and unburied, cannot be said on days on which there is an Office of a double, or on others excepted by the Rubric, and any custom whatever to the contrary is declared to be an abuse. Yet a single solemn Mass, with the body unburied, can be celebrated, even on Sundays and feast days, not however on the more solemn days of the first class." S. R. C. 29 Jan. 1752; 4 Sept. 1745; 23 May 1846.

"A usage has prevailed in the Diocese of Bruges that, in the funerals of the poor, who are not able to pay the expenses of a sung Mass, a private Mass of Requiem is read, with the corpse present, on double Feasts even the greater ones, not however of the first or second Class, nor within privileged Octaves, nor on Sunday, nor on those days which exclude double feasts. But the S. C. responded on 12 Sept. 1840 that this custom can be observed. Since the aforesaid usage has prevailed also in many Churches of the Archdiocese of Mechlin, it is asked whether through this whole Diocese it is lawful to conform itself to the aforesaid Decree? Resp. Affirmatively." S. R. C. 22 May 1841.

"Whether on the 3rd, 7th, and 30th days from the laying-away of the deceased, on which there occurs a double Office through the year, not however feasts of precept, the Office and Mass of the dead can be celebrated? And whether the aforesaid days ought to be numbered from the day of death, or from the day of laying-away? Resp. Affirmatively to the first part, provided that the matter concerns a sung Mass; to the second part, that the aforesaid 3rd, 7th, and 30th days can be numbered from the day of death or from the day of burial, according to the diverse custom of the Church." S. R. C. 23 Aug. 1766. If the 3rd, 7th, or 30th day falls on a Sunday or feast day, it is anticipated or transferred to the following day with the same solemnity. S. R. C. 23 May 1603; 4 Sept. 1745.

"1. The Apostolic See has been accustomed to concede to dim-sighted Priests an indult of celebrating a votive Mass of the B. V. M. and one of Requiem; a doubt arises: Whether the said Priest on semidoubles and simple ferias is bound under grave obligation to celebrate the Mass of Requiem, or can at choice always celebrate the Mass of the B. V. M.? 2. At the time when access to the Holy See was not open, a blind Priest, from a Bishop having this faculty from the Supreme Pontiff, had an Indult of celebrating a votive Mass of the B. M. V., but in the Decree there was omitted the obligation of the assistance of another Priest in the performance of the Sacred Rite. Hence an occasion of doubting arose: I. Whether the said Priest is bound under grave obligation to have recourse to the S. C. of the Council, and meanwhile to abstain from the celebration of Mass? II. And whether he is bound under grave obligation to use the assistance of another Priest, although the said obligation was not placed in the Decree? 3. Whether the said Priest can always celebrate the votive Mass of the B. M. V. from Pentecost to Advent, or the one assigned according to the time? Resp. To the 1st, negatively to the first part, affirmatively to the second. To the 2nd: to the first question of the doubt, insofar as he obtained the Indult from a Bishop furnished with Apostolic faculty, negatively. To the second: that in the future he is bound under grave obligation to use the assistance of another Priest, although this obligation was not placed in the Decree; as regards the past, let him consult his conscience. To the 3rd, affirmatively." S. R. C. 12 Apr. 1823.

"Whether Priests in China, Cochinchina, and Tongking, account being had of the scarcity of wine in the said kingdoms, can for the purification of the hands and chalice, amid the solemnities of Masses, use only water not mixed with wine? To the S. C. de P. F. humbly asking the said license, by responding affirmatively, it was kindly conceded." 15 Jan. 1665. But the S. I. C. on 14 June 1707 responded: "short of the greatest scarcity, the Rubrics of the Roman Missal are to be observed according to ability, especially in the purification, or first ablution."

"Whether, a subdeacon being lacking for solemn Mass, one constituted in minor orders can be substituted by superiors to sing the Epistle, vested without a maniple? Resp. Given necessity, it can be permitted." S. R. C. 5 July 1698.

"Whether it can likewise be permitted that a Regular Cleric, sometimes not even initiated with tonsure, perform the office of Subdeacon in solemn Mass, while another, either a Priest or one constituted in major Orders, is present, who can serve as Subdeacon at the same solemn Mass? Resp. In a case of necessity, provided that there is not another; but he must be a Cleric." S. R. C. 22 July 1848.

"Whether outside the case of necessity it could be permitted by superiors that a canon, constituted in minor orders, sing the Epistle in solemn Masses, vested without a maniple? Resp. Negatively, and let the Bishop take care to cut off the custom both in the Cathedral and in the Collegiate church; namely, outside the case of absolute and precise necessity it cannot be permitted by superiors that a cleric in minor orders supply for a subdeacon in solemn Masses, vested without a maniple," etc. S. R. C. 18 Dec. 1784. Gardell. n. 3328, 4269.

"Almost all the Priests of this Mission, Deacon, Subdeacon, and choir being lacking, sing Mass alone, and in it are accustomed to incense the altar. Yet there are certain Ministers vested in surplices, by whom the incense boat is ministered. Perhaps it will be that the Holy See will pity this poor Mission, and the Man of God will say to us: Go in peace. These things having been said with a somewhat more trusting mind, I profess that we are altogether prepared to correct those things which the Supreme Vicar of Christ or the S. C. shall not have wished to tolerate. Resp. They are not to be disturbed." S. C. de P. F. 18 Jan. 1797.

"A Bishop cannot delegate to a simple priest the faculty of blessing sacred vestments, unless he has for this a special privilege of the Apostolic See, by which nevertheless it is sometimes conceded to persons constituted in dignity, provided that in them there is not to be used sacred unction, or holy oil, which are to be blessed, anointed, and consecrated only by the Bishop himself, ordained and consecrated...." S. C. C. 28 Nov., 12 Dec. 1733. Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Sacred Furnishings, Blessing 20.

"Whether Bishops, whether by ordinary right or by custom, can delegate to lesser Priests all blessings described in the Roman Ritual and reserved, in which sacred unction does not intervene? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 2 Apr. 1875.

"The Bishop of Blesen 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 that sacred furnishing in which sacred unction is not employed. But since no formula is found for the Blessing of a Priest's or Levitical vestment except that which is found in the Pontifical, and therefore seems reserved to Bishops, subdelegated Priests must have recourse to the Blessing for Priestly vestments in general added to the Missal. But this Blessing does not appear altogether suitable in all circumstances, for example, for the Blessing of a cincture. Hence the aforesaid Most Reverend Petitioner most humbly requested from the S. R. C. that Priests subdelegated by him might be able to use the formula given by the Pontifical for the Blessing of any vestment whatever, which moreover is a less solemn formula. Resp. Let the subdelegated Priests use the Blessing which is read in the Roman Ritual." S. R. C. 16 March 1876.

"Whether in Blessings for which the Ritual does not give a formula, for example in Blessings of seeds to be committed to the earth, in forming the sign of the Cross over the thing to be blessed, it is expedient to say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen, and whether a candle ought to be used, and the thing is to be sprinkled with blessed water? Resp. The sign of the Cross is to be made over the thing to be blessed with the formula, In the name of the Father, etc.; then the thing itself, without a lit candle, is to be sprinkled with blessed water." S. R. C. 12 Aug. 1854. Cf. Scavini, book 4, n. 402, Milan 1874.