Point III. On the Due Place

There is a twofold question concerning the place of hearing Mass: 1. Whether satisfaction can be made to the precept in private oratories? - 2. Whether there is an obligation of assisting at Mass in the parish, or at the parochial Mass?

348. • Private oratories are chapels erected in a private house from a privilege granted by the Supreme Pontiff, so that the divine Mysteries may be performed there. - But those oratories are not reckoned private, but are to be held public, which have been legitimately erected in seminaries, monasteries, or houses of Religious or of Nuns, or of other communities, as in conservatories, prisons, hospitals, and also in the houses of Bishops. Indeed sometimes an oratory in the houses of private persons can be held as public. But for this it is required: 1. that the entrance open onto a public way; 2. that it be subject to no servitude reproved by canon law; 3. that it be devoted in perpetuity to divine worship; 4. that revenues sufficient for the divine Offices be established. - See St. Alphonsus, n. 319, etc.

It is certain that all who are comprehended in the Indult satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in a private oratory, namely the master of the oratory with his own and his familiars who are devoted to his service ¹. Excepted are the days of the principal feasts, namely Easter, Pentecost, the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Ascension, Assumption, the feast of St. Peter, and All Saints; likewise the Annunciation, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord (Decr. S. Rit. C. 17 Nov. 1607), and the titular Saint of the Church (Decr. S. C. Conc. in Derthon., 17 Febr. 1685); - and indeed on these days it is altogether forbidden to celebrate in oratories of this sort. - St. Alphonsus, de Euch., n. 359. - Gardellini. - Nevertheless no day is excepted when the oratory is granted by the Pontiff by reason of infirmity.

¹ Understand this not of all familiars, but only of those whose presence in the oratory during the time of Mass is necessary; for this is clearly drawn from the formulas of the Indult, which can be seen in Gatticus (De Orat. Priv., cap. 25, n. 23-24). Yet in defining of what sort this necessity ought to be, or who are to be called necessary familiars at that time, it is better to define from Gatticus himself, who wrote expressly on this argument, and whose work was several times printed at Rome, than from St. Alphonsus, who may seem a little more severe.

But outsiders do not satisfy according to the common opinion with St. Alphonsus, n. 319. For it is clear from the words of the Indult, which ordinarily sounds thus: We will that those who are not of the family are not to be reckoned free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church.

Q. Whether the master is bound to use the privilege if he cannot go to the church?

Resp. It is affirmed according to St. Alphonsus, if he is able conveniently to have a Priest; because, he says, he is bound to see that a Priest is present for celebrating, namely so that both he himself and others who by force of the privilege can satisfy the precept in the oratory may not be deprived of the sacrifice of the Mass. Yet others deny this from that principle that no one is bound to use a privilege ². - For several other things about private oratories, see in the Treatise on the Eucharist, where the place of celebrating Mass is treated.

² ** Gatticus himself, although in some way he adheres to the first opinion, nevertheless confesses (cap. 20, n. 36) that if the matter is to be defined by the votes of more Doctors, this second opinion prevails. But otherwise he has nothing solid by which he may respond to the reason of these Doctors, namely that merely personal privileges can be set aside or used at pleasure. And this reason of the Doctors is valid a fortiori in the present case, since there is question of a privilege odious in itself, contrary to common law, and little conformable to reverence for the Sacrament, which no one is compelled to use, as the Salamancans say (tr. 5, c. 6, n. 61) after Suarez (De Euch., disp. 88, sect. 6, § Secundum caput), and Gobat observes (tr. 5, n. 350), since to celebrate in a non-sacred place is opposed to many Canons. And hence an easy response offers itself to Cardinal de Lugo, who (De Euchar., disp. 22, n. 14) tries to argue from a comparison of this privilege with the privilege of the Bull of the Crusade, by force of which someone can assist at Mass during the time of an Interdict. Diana excellently observes (tom. 4, tr. 2, res. 35, coord. ed.) that there is a disparity of reason between case and case. For in the case of an Interdict, the impediment being removed, no dispensation is made in common law; for Mass is both said and celebrated as it ought and is accustomed: but in this case, the impediment being removed, Mass is not celebrated as it is regularly and ordinarily celebrated, because it is said outside the church.

St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 319), to the question, Whether sometimes the master is bound to use the privilege of the oratory, etc., responds: "Rightly Pasqualigo, Gatticus, and Fr. Fortunatus of Brescia affirm that the master is bound, if he can conveniently have a priest.... Hence, as Fr. of Brescia also rightly says with Nunez, Pasqualigo, and Gatticus, the privileged person is bound, if he conveniently can, to provide concerning a priest not only for himself, but also for others of the family, if any of them cannot approach the church."

But the holy Doctor better explains his mind (ibid., n. 324), where he writes: "But Busembaum rightly teaches, and it is common..., that one having the privilege of an oratory is not bound to hire a priest so that he himself may hear Mass." Therefore what he had said before (n. 319), "if he conveniently can," seems to be understood, unless he must hire a priest. But a little below he writes: "The same," that is, that he is more probably bound, "I think must be said with Collet, if you can hire a priest with a modest stipend." These things might seem not sufficiently consonant with what he had previously said was rightly taught and was common.

Whatever may be the case concerning this, when the question has been posed (ibid.) what if Mass is already said gratuitously, or can easily be had gratuitously, he responds: "Collet, and Croix with Lugo, Tamburini, and the more common opinion, as he asserts, say that he is more probably bound." And the holy Doctor aptly adds that phrase, "as he asserts," namely Croix (lib. 3, p. 1, n. 756); for on what foundation Croix wrote thus is not sufficiently apparent, unless perhaps he drew hither what others say concerning one having the Bull of the Crusade during a time of interdict.

But this must be held as certain, that against the most common opinion it is affirmed that any obligation is present of hiring a priest. And indeed to whom has it ever come into mind, if the discussion is not indeed of a privileged oratory, but of a church to which alone someone can approach, in which nevertheless he does not have Mass unless he himself gives a stipend to the celebrant - to whom, I say, has it come into mind that this person is bound to find a priest in such a way, so that he himself or someone else of the family may hear Mass? Tamburini rightly says of this (lib. 4, c. 2, §2, n. 4): "This precept obliges only to hearing Mass, but not to procuring it by a special stipend." Indeed Gobat (l.c., n. 552) does not hesitate to affirm that someone is not even bound "to induce by prayers a priest that he read the Sacrifice for you, whereby you may be able to satisfy the law."

But even if we abstract from the circumstance of some stipend to be paid, this must be diligently considered, that the opinion which imposes the obligation, even according to its patrons, is contained within the limits of mere probability. Indeed Cardinal de Lugo (l.c.), although he was treating of one having the Bull of the Crusade, was content to affirm that his opinion could not, even practically, be marked with improbability. But from the principle which St. Alphonsus so greatly defends and inculcates, mere probability in no way suffices for asserting and imposing obligations on the faithful. And these things may satisfy the VV., who (p. 921) oppose the opinion of St. Alphonsus to the opinion of the Author.

349. • I. It is certain that formerly there existed an obligation of assisting at the parochial Mass, at least once on three continuous Sundays; it is clear from the most ancient and universal custom of the Church, confirmed by innumerable decrees of particular Councils, especially of the Council of Elvira, can. 21, an. 343; of Sardica, can. 14 and 15, an. 347; likewise from Benedict XIV, de Syn., lib. 11, c. 14, n. 7.

II. It is certain that the ancient law was partially derogated by privileges granted to Regulars, even after the Council of Trent. It is clear especially from the Constitution of Pius V (Etsi mendicantium, an. 1567), where it is said: The faithful of Christ, by hearing Mass and the other divine Offices in the churches of brothers of this sort, that is, mendicants, on Sundays and feast days, are to be reckoned to have satisfied the precept of the Church.

III. But it is certain that the same ancient law has universally been derogated by a general contrary custom long since legitimately prescribed. It is clear: 1. from the testimony of most theologians; 2. especially from Benedict XIV, de Synod. dioces., l. 11, c. 14, where he asserts that the decrees of Councils and of Supreme Pontiffs establishing the obligation were derogated by contrary custom; indeed that a Bishop cannot compel subjects by penalties to hear Mass or a sermon in the parish, but that they are only to be exhorted, and that therefore the Constitutions of the Bishop of Meath issued about this matter were reformed according to the sentence of the sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent.

350. • Q. Whether in France the aforesaid obligation still urges?

Resp. No. The reason is that the ancient law has been completely abrogated by universal custom, which constitutes a certain common law, against which Bishops cannot rise, as Benedict XIV declared, ibid.; and consequently, if they rise against it by their own authority, they act illicitly and invalidly, since they exceed the power handed over to them by the Canons. - Thus Gousset, Justification de S. Lig., n. 355, and in Theolog., n. 555. - Bouvier, de 3 Praec., art. 3. - Ritual of Belley, etc. And thus the Council of Reims, celebrated in the year 1850, t. 3, c. 6, declared, with which several other more recent Councils of France agreed in this.

Indeed the faithful are to be greatly exhorted to be frequently present at the parochial Mass and sermons; but they are not to be compelled to this under obligation. Yet the faithful of whatever region or nation, who lack necessary Christian instruction and are destitute of other means for procuring it, cannot be excused from fault if they always or for the most part neglect to be present at the parochial Mass, in which alone they can be instructed.