Chapter III — On alms for Masses to be celebrated

I. The most wise Pontiff Benedict XIV set this argument in full light both in his treatise On the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the work On the Synod. I have reported entire in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 6, the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent upon this argument, which you can see there. Now I shall resolve certain little questions.

II. QUESTION I. By whom is the alms to be conferred upon a priest celebrating Mass to be fixed? ANSWER. By the bishop, as the Congregation of the Council determined, since a general rule cannot be prescribed. If a priest exact more alms than the bishop's fixing prescribes, he injures not only the law of the Church but commutative justice itself. Nor is it required, as all theologians teach, that the alms suffice for the entire sustenance of one day, because the action of the Sacrifice does not require the whole day but half an hour. Wherefore secular priests are not promoted to sacred Orders without a title either of patrimony or of benefice.

III. QUESTION II. Is it lawful for a rich priest to accept an alms that he may celebrate Mass? ANSWER. If several ancient canons be consulted, they seem to grant an alms to a priest about to celebrate on account of sustenance; but the universal custom of the Church, by which one must always stand, permits to all priests indiscriminately an alms for a Mass to be celebrated. Which custom rests upon holy Scripture, since St. Luke says, chapter 10: For the labourer is worthy of his hire; and St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 9: Know you not, that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? Let the Apostle's whole chapter be read. That priests are rich or poor is, as regards this, by accident. He that serveth the altar, let him live by the altar.

IV. QUESTION III. What priests in celebrating afford a suspicion of simony? ANSWER. Those who, the alms being lacking, desist from celebrating. For the author of the opusculum On the Office of a Priest, chapter 1, once attributed to St. Thomas, says: A priest nevertheless cannot celebrate with this intention, that from it he may obtain money, for he would sin mortally. Very easily do many flatter themselves, and study to disguise this intention with various pretexts. But let priests consult their own fervour, and the profit which they take from celebration, and hence, when they will not lie to themselves, they will gather whether they celebrate principally for the end of the Sacrifice, or for the gaining of bread.

V. QUESTION IV. Can a priest celebrate through another, retaining for himself part of the stipend accepted? ANSWER. Many affirm it, whose opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 9: After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are delivered can satisfy through another, a lesser stipend being conferred upon him, another part of the stipend being retained for himself. Fr. Viva upon this proposition 9, no. 8, reports the lax opinion of Bordoni asserting that the aforesaid priest does not sin against justice, but only against the obedience owed to the Pontiff: upon which opinion Fr. Viva brings forth this most probabilistic judgment: Although this is not without its own probability, it seems nevertheless more probable, and so forth. If that opinion is not without its own probability, then by force of Probabilism it can be committed to execution.

VI. Fr. Tamburini, Book 3, Method of the Mass, chapter 1, § 5, no. 15, says: “If a man, being a procurator that a hundred Masses, for example, be celebrated, which Masses in this city are wont to be said for, say, two hundred julii: if a man, I say, by his own industry send or go to another city, where within the demanded time they may be said for a hundred julii, I think it not improbable that such a procurator can retain for himself the other hundred. The reason is that a parity can be taken from a servant who by extraordinary industry (for to the ordinary and moral he is obliged by his very service), by his own labour buys things at less than they are commonly worth in the market: for he can retain what is over, as being the fruit of his own industry. In a like way therefore in our case.” A most witty comparison of profane service with the procurators to whom the care of Masses to be celebrated is committed! All things become lawful by the probable and by the non-probable. The filthiest gain is insinuated in the very celebration of Masses. A Christian man would scarcely think such things, did he not meet those writings. Servants let out their labours to their master. Wherefore it can scarcely, or at least rarely, happen that they can gain for themselves by extraordinary industry, since the time to be laid out in extraordinary industry has been sold to the master. But even granting the servant's gain, to extend it to procurators of Masses seems to abhor from truth and honesty.

VII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Treatise on Proposition 9 of Alexander VII, no. 8, says: “If collectors of alms for Masses be priests, and Masses to be celebrated be not delivered to them, but they bear themselves as laymen who take care of the celebration of Masses, they will be able, from Navarrus, Córdoba, and Tamburini, probably against Pellizzari and Soto, to take a moderate wage for their labour out of what is given for the Mass, since this seems lawful by the law of nature.” Good heavens! The law of nature permits that out of the offerings conferred by the faithful for the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated, priests take a wage, provided that in collecting the alms they bear themselves as laymen and not as priests! The practice of both opinions, of Tamburini and Viva, Benedict XIV prohibited in his Constitution 21, whose beginning is Quanta cura, where among other things these things are had: There are forbidden traffickings upon the alms of Masses; that is, those who collect alms in those places in which the stipends or alms for Masses are of a greater price, but take care that the Masses be celebrated in places in which they are wont to be celebrated for a lesser price: if they be laymen, let them incur excommunication; but if clerics or priests, suspension to be absolved by the Roman Pontiff alone. See also what the same Pontiff writes, Book 5, On the Synod, chapter 8, no. 9, and chapter 9, no. 2.

VIII. A beneficiary, when he is compelled to celebrate through another, can lawfully afford the accustomed alms, although he himself perceive a greater one from the benefice, as the Sacred Congregation determined. In those Masses therefore which they call manual, it is forbidden to celebrate through others, a lesser stipend being conferred than was accepted. When a man commits a Mass to be celebrated to a priest instructed with singular uprightness, a greater stipend being conferred, he ought not to celebrate through another, even the whole stipend being conferred. Several other little questions some raise here, which savour of trafficking and bring in disgust.

IX. A priest who accepts scanty stipends from several, promising a Mass to each, cannot satisfy with one Mass alone. Fr. Viva, question 5, last article, no. 9, says: “But Trullench and Tamburini, Book 3, chapter 1, § 3, think probable the opinion of Suárez teaching that in that case this can be granted to a poor priest, when, compelled by poverty, he consents.” This opinion was disapproved on the 14th by a decree of the Sacred Congregation. Fr. Viva heaps up many things from Tamburini and other probabilists, to show that the decree of the Sacred Congregation is not opposed to the opinion of Suárez; but at no. 10 he confesses with de Lugo that by the decree of the Congregation it is forbidden that the opinion of Fr. Suárez be reduced to practice. And at last, contrary to his custom, he concludes: I judge in the third place that the opinion of Suárez is false.

X. QUESTION V. Can a priest accept a twofold stipend — one for the attendance, as it is called, at a designated church, the other for the application? ANSWER. De Lugo and Tamburini affirm it, provided it be established that the one willed only the presence, the other only the application. Fr. La Croix reports for this opinion Suárez, Vásquez, Pasqualigo, Aversa, and others, and himself after his manner brings forth nothing.

XI. But the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, Vol. 5, note 15, reports a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of the 9th of January and the 6th of February in the year 1617, which contains this. Whether priests who under no other obligation celebrate in confraternities or in monasteries of nuns than for the adornment of the church, or that the confraternity brothers or the nuns may satisfy the precept of hearing Mass, can accept beyond the stipend which they receive from the confraternities or the nuns another stipend? The Sacred Congregation of the Council on the 9th of January and the 6th of February in the year 1617, in the Traguriensian case, answered that they cannot.

XII. A priest cannot receive a twofold stipend, one for the fruit of impetration of the Mass, another for the fruit of satisfaction, whatever some may formerly have devised to the contrary. He who accepted a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated where and when he shall have willed, if someone afterwards ask him to celebrate at a certain place or time, can he accept something for such an obligation? There are those who affirm it: to me subtle figments of this kind seem tinged with the soot of a base trafficking. Similarly I do not approve the opinion of Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 141, which he reports from Fr. Gobat in these words: If nevertheless it be agreed concerning the most special fruit, or another part of the fruit not sought, to be applied to a third party, that it may profit him as much as it can, that something can therefore be taken Gobat notes, no. 52, provided he warn the giver of the uncertainty whether such an application profit him. Distinctions of this kind in a most grave matter I do not approve.

XIII. QUESTION VI. Can several obligations be satisfied by a single Mass? ANSWER. Although Urban VIII, Supreme Pontiff, forbade this, there have not therefore been lacking those who maintained the opposite. Their opinion Alexander VII proscribed in this thesis 10: It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice; neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise, by a promise confirmed even by an oath, to him who gives the stipend, that I will offer it for no other. Let the reader observe that this thesis was maintained and devised by certain Catholics, and let him seriously consider what can be expected from them in controverted matters, if against a truth so clear they could write such things. You promised, you swore that you would sacrifice for no other; nevertheless you sacrifice, and do not sin even against fidelity? Did Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, or Plutarch ever write such things?

XIV. When a man has accepted stipends for Masses to be celebrated, he ought not long to defer the celebration. Diana, de Lugo, and Pasqualigo teach that it cannot be deferred beyond three months. Urban VIII forbids in his decree that more Masses be accepted than can be celebrated within a small time. But the time of three months does not seem small. The quantity of time cannot be defined; but the circumstances, and especially the wills of the offerers and the necessities for the relieving of which the Masses are prescribed, are to be attended to. He who cannot celebrate the Masses for which he accepted stipends ought to furnish that which he can. He ought to admonish the offerers, if circumstances permit, that they take care that the Masses be celebrated. But his reputation is injured. Alas, wretched man! You squander your reputation by iniquitous actions which misbecome a priest of Christ; and when satisfaction must be made to God and to your neighbour, do you set your reputation against it?

XV. He who has vowed to offer a sacrifice for thanksgiving cannot accept a stipend, because he is presumed to have had this intention. He who accepted a stipend that he might celebrate a Mass of Requiem does not gravely sin if he celebrate another Mass; nevertheless, when the rubrics permit, faith is to be kept with the offerer, and he is to be warned that such a Mass cannot be celebrated. The anticipated celebration of Masses — namely, that a Mass to be celebrated tomorrow be celebrated today — since it is to the offerer's advantage, lacks fault, unless the offerer's intention be otherwise. He who is bound to celebrate every day can once in the week for reverence' sake omit it; he cannot nevertheless accept a stipend and celebrate for another. He who by the burden of a chaplaincy is bound to celebrate daily, if on account of the crimes of pollution, fornication, drunkenness, and so forth he be suspended by his confessor as unworthy, ought to fulfil his burden through another priest.

XVI. When a testator of a chaplaincy does not prescribe the number of Masses, it is better to consult the bishop. If a chaplain be sick, for about two months authors commonly free him from celebrating through another. But that priests may be freed from every doubt, the synodal laws or approved customs of each diocese are to be consulted. Too lax is the opinion which frees a chaplain from the burden of celebrating for the whole time in which he is sick. He who labours under the falling sickness ought to abstain from celebration. If he fall rarely, let the bishop be consulted, who, all things being regarded, may decide.

XVII. The intention of applying the Mass for the offerers is required. A habitual one does not suffice, whatever some may say; nor is an actual one necessary; but a virtual one suffices. Neither lawful nor valid is the application of a Mass for him whom God knows will first give a stipend; and La Croix says from Bassaeus that Clement VIII forbade this, which decree I have not seen.

XVIII. The reduction of Masses Benedict XIV set in full light, Book 5, On the Synod, chapter 10, where after many indicated decrees of Pontiffs he concludes: “Nevertheless after Urban VIII other Roman Pontiffs — namely Alexander VII, Clement X, Clement XI, Innocent XII, and Benedict XIII — granted to almost all religious institutes the privilege that the superiors general, mature counsel being employed and certain rules being observed which are expressed in the letters of the same privileges, could each in his own religious order moderate the burdens of Masses previously left and accepted: and the same faculty was made by Benedict XIII of holy memory to all bishops who by themselves or by their procurators were present at the Roman Council held in 1725, as may be seen in the same Council, title 15, chapter 8.”

XIX. QUESTION VII. On what days ought those who bear the care of souls to apply the Mass for the flock committed to them? ANSWER. Various disputations were formerly among authors upon this matter. All these the most learned Pontiff Benedict XIV, happily reigning, took away in his encyclical letter upon the parochial and conventual Mass, whose beginning is Cum semper oblatas, given in the year 1744. I have reported the entire letter in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 6. Now I transcribe a few words. We think it opportune to declare to your Fraternities that it will be abundantly enough for us, and consequently can be enough for you, that those who exercise the care of souls celebrate and apply the sacrifice of the Mass for the people on Sundays and on the other days of precept throughout the year. Read the entire letter, in which you will find most wholesome documents for parish priests. There are also rejected the excuses of those pastors who omitted to apply the Sacrifice on the said days for the flock committed to them on account of the slenderness of their revenues.

XX. QUESTION VIII. At what hour is it lawful to celebrate? ANSWER. From dawn until noon, as the common opinion teaches. Various causes can occur for anticipating or protracting this celebration by an hour. He who without cause violates the law of the prescribed time sins. I reckon that in this matter one rarely sins gravely, on account of the various customs of places.

XXI. QUESTION IX. When is it lawful to celebrate several times on the same day? ANSWER. Formerly priests celebrated several times. At present it is granted only on the day of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate three Masses. No one nevertheless is bound to celebrate three. Several cases are wont to be assigned in which it is lawful to repeat Masses. If a parish priest have several parishes, and unless he celebrate several Masses some parish would lack a Mass, then, they say, he can double. But in our age, in which the supply of priests is most abundant, this necessity scarcely occurs.

XXII. QUESTION X. In what place is one to celebrate? ANSWER. In a church either consecrated, or at least blessed by the bishop, at an altar either consecrated or in which there is a consecrated stone. The bishop can impart a faculty of celebrating outside a church in some honourable place for a just cause. A bishop on a journey can celebrate at a portable altar, both in his own and in another's diocese. Upon which matter Clement XI published a decree in the year 1703, which I have reported entire in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 7. In a ship also it is lawful to celebrate, provided there be no danger of the blood being spilled.

XXIII. QUESTION XI. What is to be said of private oratories? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 22, On the Celebration of Mass, forbids that bishops permit celebration in private houses. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 267, relates that bishops exercise the power of granting private oratories. In Italy this faculty of erecting oratories in the houses of seculars is granted by the Supreme Pontiff alone.

XXIV. In oratories of this kind it is forbidden to celebrate on the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, of the Epiphany, of Easter, of Pentecost, of the Annunciation, of the Assumption, of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All Saints, unless it be otherwise expressed in the privilege.

XXV. They satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on a feast day in these private oratories all who dwell in the house of the privileged person, as father, mother, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, wife, sons, daughters, grandsons, great-grandsons, and others descending by the direct line and remaining under the government of the privileged person: in one word, all those and those alone who are expressed in the privilege. It were to be wished that Christians would sustain this inconvenience of visiting the supreme Lord in his own house. Not a few extort these privileges out of ostentation and out of sloth.

XXVI. Many probabilists — Azor, Castropalao, Pellizzari, Busembaum, Burghaber, Gobat, whom Fr. La Croix reports, Book 3, part 1, no. 618 — teach that even those who are not of the family satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on a feast day in private oratories of this kind, and La Croix himself calls their opinion probable. But this opinion is not probable but utterly false, and the Pontiff disapproves it in these words contained in the Bull: But we will that others who are not of the family be not reckoned free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church. Many other interpretations I pass over.

XXVII. QUESTION XII. What is to be held concerning the consecration of a church and its pollution? ANSWER. A church can be blessed by a simple priest by commission of the bishop; it can be consecrated by the bishop alone. The Supreme Pontiff can commit to a simple priest that he consecrate a church.

XXVIII. A church is polluted: first, on account of a homicide perpetrated in it, even without the shedding of blood, or if a wound be so deadly that there or elsewhere death must follow. Second, by a public shedding of blood or of seed mortally evil, and consequently by a sacrilegious conjugal act. Third, by the burial of an excommunicated person to be shunned, or of an unbeliever. Fourth, by the destruction of the church, or the demolition of the greater part.

XXIX. An altar apt for sacrifice ought to have been consecrated by its own bishop, whether fixed or portable. The notable breaking of the same renders it execrated. If the stone be broken into two parts, of which each is apt to sustain the chalice, paten, and host, either can serve for an altar.

XXX. QUESTION XIII. Is a priest bound to offer Mass? ANSWER. All the faithful are bound by natural, divine, and ecclesiastical precept to offer sacrifice to God through public ministers. Therefore by the same right priests are bound, since these two things are reciprocal. See Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 8. Cajetan on 3, question 82, article 10, taught that priests who rarely or never perform sacred rites sin only venially. This opinion as false and lax St. Pius V commanded to be struck out of Cajetan's commentaries.

XXXI. Parish priests and all who have the care of souls are bound by themselves, or, if they be hindered, through others, to celebrate as often as the faithful are bound to assist at Mass. Nor hence gather that these ought to celebrate on feast days alone: for since they are pastors, they are bound to celebrate if not daily, yet frequently, that by their example they may allure their sheep to receive the divine pasture. The other priests ought to celebrate at least on Sundays and the other feasts, as the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 14, prescribes. On the other days let them celebrate more or less according to their greater or lesser fervour. Although formerly in time of persecution priests celebrated without a minister, nevertheless, persecution ceasing, the opposite discipline has always obtained of celebrating with a minister. Therefore of St. Sixtus St. Laurence said: Thou wast never wont to offer sacrifice without a minister.