Addenda and Corrigenda

Tom. II.

Page 62, col. 2, n. 1308, III. What is said in this place understand according to the following response of the Sacred Penitentiary. "Whether, where clocks accommodated to mean time are used, one must stand by them both for fulfilling the burden of the Divine Office and for observing the natural fast; or whether one ought, or at least can, use true time? The Sacred Penitentiary responded: The faithful, in observing the natural fast and in reciting the Divine Office, can follow mean time, but are not bound to do so. - On 29 Nov. 1882."

Page 215, col. 2, n. 1523, q. 3°, R. 4°. The opinion of St. Alphonsus concerning the sense of the indult for conferring Orders outside the times is confirmed by the Response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of the same day, 18 May 1883, in the Marionopolitana. "Doubt II. Whether the faculty of conferring Sacred Orders outside the times, by force of art. 1, Form. I., generally granted to missionary Bishops, is limited, unless there is a very special indult, to those days alone on which by common law it is lawful to confer Minor Orders, namely feast days of precept, even those abrogated in favor of the faithful? Or whether it extends to all individual days of the year, or at least to all on which an Office of double rite is recited?" The Sacred Congregation responded: "Affirmatively to the first part: negatively to the second."

Page 266, col. 2, n. 1607. I hold as probable the opinion that the Decree Tametsi, without a special Pontifical indult, can validly be promulgated only in parishes strictly so called. Yet I add that it would be very desirable for the Holy See to be consulted on the matter. Here is the response given to Bishop N. N. "Bishop N. N., in the Canadian region, set forth to the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition that now doubts arise concerning the validity of certain marriages contracted without the solemnity required by the Decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent in the missions or quasi-parishes of this diocese. For before the year 1872 many places of the diocese N. N., commonly called Cantons or Townships, had not yet been canonically divided into parishes. In these places there were: 1° Missions properly so called, namely without a resident priest, but visited through the year, at times both fixed and unequal, by a missionary delegated for this purpose; 2° quasi-parishes, by which must be understood a territory which, as to external appearance, more or less approached the likeness of a parish, inasmuch as it had a church near which a priest ordinarily, or at least principally, resided, and boundaries designated by the Bishop. - Nevertheless, in these missions and quasi-parishes, just as also in parishes properly so called, the Decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent had been published annually by the priests placed over their care. For to this end the Bishops of the Province of Quebec had commanded: 'Since the Tridentine Council, by the solemn decree (Tametsi, Sess. 24 de Ref. matrim.), declared null and invalid marriages entered otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest and witnesses, whose number it determines, we judge it a matter of greatest moment that parish priests and missionaries announce so salutary a decree to the people. We will, therefore, that they read it on the first Sunday after Epiphany, on the occasion of the sermon. In parishes especially, and in newly erected missions, this decree will be published opportunely, as the very tenor of the same decree and the response of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, given to the Bishop of Quebec on 16 Nov. 1824, prescribe.' But since there is doubt whether the Tridentine Decree can validly be published outside parishes properly so called, it is humbly asked of the Sacred Congregation to declare: Whether the promulgation of the Decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent in the missions and quasi-parishes above mentioned was valid?

"The response was given on Wednesday, 14 Nov. 1883. 'According to the things set forth, affirmatively, and according to the mind. The mind is that in places where a Parish Priest cannot be had, a marriage entered before two witnesses is valid, with the obligation, however, upon the contracting parties of receiving the nuptial blessing as soon as they conveniently can, and of taking care that the marriage be entered in the sacramental registers of the mission or nearer church on which they depend.

"This resolution was confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord on the same feria and day.'

"If I have been rightly, although not authentically, instructed, the reason for the response of the Sacred Congregation is this. The Decree Tametsi must indeed be interpreted strictly, but according to the mind of the Tridentine Fathers. But their mind in composing that Decree was not that parishes should be distinguished from missions among Catholics, but that the Catholic assemblies of the same city or region should be distinguished from the assemblies of heretics, because they did not wish heretics to be comprehended in this Decree where they had distinct assemblies and congregations; and this is the simple and true signification of the word Parish in this Decree according to the mind of the Tridentine Fathers."

Page 384, col. 2, n. 1787. Note 2 on the same page must be reformed according to the following Response of the Holy See. "The Most Reverend Archbishop N. N. enjoys an Apostolic indult of erecting the Way of the Cross with the faculty of communicating a license of this kind also to other priests subject to his spiritual jurisdiction. Supported by such an indult, he has bestowed the aforesaid faculty upon the priests of the archdiocese in a general way, so that in individual cases they need not have recourse to him. But since, according to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences set forth above, erections of the Way of the Cross of this kind are deservedly to be considered invalid, hence the humble petitioner, on bended knee, asks that Your Holiness deign to heal in the root all and singular erections of the Way of the Cross existing for the time being in the Archdiocese N. N., which may have been invalid either because of the cause stated in the petition or because of any other cause.

"From the Audience of His Holiness held on 21 Oct. 1883: Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, Pope by Divine Providence, . . . deigned graciously to grant the requested sanation; but in order to avert in the future any doubt concerning the legitimate erection of the Way of the Cross thereupon, the Parish Priests or Rectors of the churches in which the Way of the Cross was erected in the manner set forth should take care to ask in writing from the Ordinary the required consent for each erection individually." The Pastor, vol. II, p. 23 (125).

For the peace of consciences we add that by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, on 31 July 1883, all defects which have occurred anywhere in the erection of the Way of the Cross were healed. The Pastor, vol. II, p. 21 (121).

Page 386, col. 2, n. 1790, q. 2°. Resp. . . . under 1. - Add the following response, or rather indult. "The Vicar General N. N., prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, humbly sets forth as follows. As regards the erection of confraternities of the same name and institute, the law requires a certain distance of churches. But among us, and in most cities of the United States of North America, in the same place there are quasi-parochial churches for diverse nations speaking diverse languages, chiefly English and German. The parishes have boundaries so distinguished one from another as to the others, that the faithful of the English language, for example, belong to their own churches, and those using the German language to other churches of their own language, and have almost no communication among themselves. By this law it happens that very often two churches, although of diverse language, have almost no distance between themselves. This division and separation is of greater difference in reality than mere local distance. For morally it is impossible that, if there is question of a confraternity erected in a church of one language, the faithful using another language should approach this for enrollment, and especially for public devotion in a different vernacular language. Therefore it is asked whether the law concerning the distance of confraternities also avails for these circumstances or not?

"From the Audience of His Holiness, held on 21 October 1883. Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, Pope by Divine Providence, upon the report of me, the undersigned Secretary of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, deigned graciously to consent in favor of the grace of dispensation from the required distance, yet under this condition, that each instituted Confraternity can enroll only those who belong to the determinate nation for which, as is said, the same Confraternity has already been erected or is to be erected. And this under penalty of nullity of the Indulgences." The Pastor, vol. II, p. 22 (124).

The response contains an indult, which avails only for the diocese of that Vicar General.

Page 388, col. 1, n. 1792, under a). I say that the blessing and imposition of Scapulars must be done by the prescribed or indulted formula. It was asked: "Whether one who obtained from the Superior of the respective Order the faculty of blessing and imposing 'the said four Scapulars' (which are blessed and imposed by the Fathers of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer) can licitly and validly use the shorter formula approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites" (for the aforesaid Fathers), "without having obtained for this a special faculty from the Holy See?" The response was given by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, on 12 Sept. 1883: "Validly indeed, but not licitly." The Pastor, vol. II, p. 22 (123).