U. Instruction of the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide on Bination

1. The faculty of binating, with which the Holy See is accustomed to furnish Ordinaries of Missions, together with the power of communicating the same to their Missionaries, has stirred up not a few doubts proposed by them to the Sacred Congregation. The reason of these doubts is taken from the very rigor of the clauses which, by order of Alexander VII, were appositely placed in the article of the formularies which treats of this faculty. Wherefore it has seemed opportune, in the following Instruction, to gather together the more common principles and rules which are to be kept before the eyes in the use of the said faculty.

2. No one is ignorant that by the general rule, according to the discipline of the Church now in force, it is lawful for a priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in the day. For thus Innocent III disposed: "We answer that, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, unless a cause of necessity should persuade it, it suffices for a priest to celebrate one Mass only once in the day."¹

3. Therefore in a case of necessity it is permitted to a priest to repeat Mass on the same day. But this, as is clearly gathered from the terms of the formula itself, must be understood of the permission of only two Masses, notwithstanding the gravity of causes for celebrating a greater number. The Prefect of the Mission of the Capuchins at Tunis asked whether, if, because all his Missionaries had been imprisoned, he could on one and the same day, if necessity urged, celebrate more than two Masses. The Sacred General Congregation of Propaganda, on August 7, 1684, resolved "that he could not, by force of the faculties, celebrate beyond two Masses." This had already been answered in the General Congregation held before the Most Holy One on February 17, 1648; for, the abuse introduced among the captive priests of Algiers of celebrating three Masses having been set forth, "the Most Holy One ... ordered through the said Prefect" (of Algiers) "that it be enjoined upon the priests in the name of His Holiness ... that since the Apostolic See in the faculties of Missionaries has granted the power or license of celebrating twice in the day where necessity requires it, 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 sole title by which bination is permitted to priests. But it is useful to observe with Vericelli,² "that this necessity is not to be taken on the part of the scarcity of priests, but on the part of the spiritual necessity of the people and the rarity of priests." This principle being posited, from it various negative rules for the use of this faculty can easily be deduced:

5. 1° It is clear that he would reason falsely who would say that he can binate on suppressed feasts, on which the people are exempt from the obligation of hearing Mass, as the Sacred Congregation admonished in the year 1837: "The matter having been maturely weighed, from the words of the formula itself it appeared clearly enough that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated festivities. For since in the mentioned formula it is declared that the faculty avails if necessity urges, it follows that from this title alone, that those days were formerly feast days, Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same priest."

6. 2° Likewise it is prohibited to binate for the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private oratories. In the year 1842 the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg had proposed the custom there introduced of permitting bination in private oratories in the camps of magnates. But since he did not think that in these circumstances the necessity which is demanded by the formularies was verified, he asked, by reason both of the custom and of the moral utility arising from it, license to permit this. But the Holy Office judged: according to the things set forth, it is not expedient. But when the Apostolic Vicar had added that some priests, by reason of a faculty previously given by his predecessor, were continuing the bination, the same Sacred Congregation decreed: "the faculty is to be revoked, insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg thinks that this can prudently be done."

7. 3° From the same resolutions it is deduced that custom is not a sufficient title, so that the same priest on the same day can celebrate two Masses. This also is conformable to the things which Benedict XIV hands down in the Constitution Declarasti Nobis to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon, on March 16, 1746: "We ask only whether that custom has acquired for itself the nature of prescription or presumption, and we judge both to be false and alien."

And as to prescription he says: "For if, according to the civil laws, sacred things cannot be prescribed, it is absurd on every side to assert that anything has been obtained or acquired by prescription which is opposed to the universal sanctions of the Church, the observance of which the Holy Council of Trent enjoins upon all priests in the celebration of Masses." Moreover, concerning presumption he adds: "But, passing over the rest, we add that these things can be understood concerning those privileges which could have been obtained from the Apostolic See, if someone had asked for them, but not concerning those which, when they are asked, are wholly accustomed to be denied, lest presumption have more strength and moment than truth."

Hence also the Sacred Congregation, when it learned that in some place the custom of binating without necessity had been introduced, did not omit to reprove such a custom as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of Bishops to eliminate it.

8. 4° Moreover, it is also very far from the case that the poverty of priests justifies bination, as we have already noted from Vericelli.³ A certain Archbishop of Ireland had asked in the year 1688 "whether, from the sole cause of poverty, Regulars could celebrate two Masses on feast days, doing this in private houses, although all parishes and convents had their churches and chapels." The response of the Sacred Congregation was negative; and when in two particular Congregations, on March 7, 1743, and July 28, 1750, it had been reported that the prohibited abuse was still flourishing in Ireland, namely, that many priests were using the faculty of binating for no other end than that they might have more abundant alms and sustain themselves more comfortably, the Eminent Fathers decreed: Let the priests be gravely admonished not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in the day so that they may have a larger and richer stipend. And by Benedict XIV⁴ the concession of the faculty of binating to some priest to the end that he might support himself more decently by a double alms is called an intolerable abuse. Only that it might show some concession to the poor Religious of that Kingdom, who had complained of a similar prohibition made in the year 1817 by the Provincial Synod of Tuam, because of the damage arising therefrom, the alms having been taken away from them which they were accustomed to receive at the doors of the church on occasion of the Mass, since they supported themselves from the contributions of the faithful, the Sacred Congregation willed that the Bishops be admonished that "in imparting, by Apostolic authority, license to priests to celebrate two Masses on feast days of precept on account of causes of necessity approved by the Apostolic constitutions, they should have regard for regular priests, and especially for those who dwell in poor monasteries." Besides, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by declaring that "from the general practice presbyters are not granted permission to receive an alms for a second Mass, even if there is question of those who, being furnished with a parochial office, cannot therefore obtain a stipend for the first Mass, because they are bound to apply it for the people," as it communicated by circular letters of the S. C. of Propaganda on October 15, 1863 to the Ordinaries of missions, utterly removed every pretext of the abuse of binating on account of the stipend. But by reason of the particular circumstances of some Missions, His Holiness deigned, as is clear from the said letters, to furnish the Ordinaries with the faculty of permitting "that, a just and grave cause intervening, priests subject to them may and can receive a stipend also for a second Mass to be celebrated on the same day."

9. 5° Finally, a priest is prohibited from binating as long as another priest can be had through whom the necessity of the people can be satisfied, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the praised Constitution Declarasti Nobis. Wherefore, before room is given to bination, it must be seen whether there is present any one of the remedies which the canons have established for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and in the first place the parish priest himself is bound to supply a stipend to another priest; if he cannot, the people are bound; finally, if not even the people, on account of poverty, can do this, the Ordinary ought to supply.⁵

10. Thus far concerning the cases in which bination is prohibited. The cases in which the necessity required by the canons concurs are enumerated in the Constitution Declarasti Nobis. In it, it is first observed that, according to the unanimous consent of Theologians, it is permitted to a priest to binate "who holds two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present on feast days when the parish priest celebrates, on account of the very great distance of the places." And this is the first and more common case; the other, which is found in the same place, is "when there is only one Church in which Mass is celebrated, and to which the whole people together cannot come."

11. In the aforesaid cases Mass can be repeated also by those who are not furnished with the faculty of the formularies which the S. Congregation of Propaganda is accustomed to grant, because it is permitted by common law; always, however, with the permission of the Ordinary, in whose power it is to judge whether there is true necessity, and at the same time whether there is any possibility of applying the canonical remedies (§ 9). In fact Benedict XIV, after indicating remedies of this kind, adds: "The things which have been said thus far rest also upon general canonical sanctions"; concordant also is the opinion of Theologians, as Benedict XIV observes, in the case of one parish priest but of two parishes, that "the parish priest not only can, but plainly is bound, to celebrate Mass twice on the same day."⁶ From these things it is easily deduced that the analogous article of the formularies, since it is facultative, extends also to other cases of necessity not considered in common law; otherwise it would be useless, at least in places where parishes have been canonically erected, since common law provides for these. This agrees with the things which the praised Pontiff says in the work On the Sacrosanct Sacrifice of the Mass,⁷ where, after he establishes that the case which really occurs is that in which a parish priest has two parishes, etc., he continues in these words: "nor nevertheless do we wish anything prejudged concerning other cases which happen in missions, for which provision has been made by granting to Missionaries the faculty of celebrating several Masses on the same day; and likewise concerning other cases in which, either on account of distance of places, or on account of fewness of priests, or the persecution of heretics or infidels, lest the faithful lack Mass, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by Priests."

And concerning these very cases which occur in Missions, and on account of which the faculty is given to their Superiors, the S. Congregation of Propaganda treated in the year 1832 in a letter to a certain Missionary of Philippopolis, who was not celebrating several Masses, although he had several congregations. The Sacred General Congregation, having imposed upon him the obligation of binating, adds: "If you ask why in the faculty of binating certain rigorous clauses have been added to the formularies of the indult, in the formula itself you will find the answer; for you will observe that the indult is not restricted to the necessity of the people on feast days, but, since it is contained in general terms, it includes in the question also other cases, as the necessity of administering Viaticum in both parishes, and that in these cases the prescribed cautions have place."

12. In these very less obvious cases Bishops and Missionaries are not rarely distressed as to the use of the faculty, doubting especially concerning the sufficiency of the causes which are required according to the mind of the added clauses. On the other hand, there are so many and so various cases which can happen in this matter in Missions that they can hardly be foreseen, and much less reduced to determinate rules, because the decision is subject to the various circumstances of places, times, and persons which concur in these cases. Therefore the solution of particular doubts which have been proposed concerning this matter has for the most part been left to the prudent judgment of the Superiors of Missions.

13. And first, a rule concerning the number of the faithful which would suffice for Mass to be repeated has often been sought. In the Constitution Apostolicum Ministerium it is said that throughout England the faculty can be exercised "when the number of those who on festive days are bound to assist at the Sacred rites exhibits such necessity that, unless the power of celebrating two Masses on the same day be granted to some priest, very many would not satisfy the command of the Church." This general criterion does not remove every doubt as to the number necessary for bination. The same can be said of the negative response of the Holy Office in the year 1688 to certain Capuchin Missionaries of Greece. These had asked: "whether a Missionary priest dwelling alone in a place can celebrate two Masses on Sundays and feast days for fifteen or twenty persons who, being legitimately impeded, could not be present at the first Mass"; and the Sacred Congregation on January 28 of the same year decreed: it is not lawful. If therefore the number twenty is insufficient for the effect, it can be further asked what is the minimum number which suffices.

14. But with respect to this doubt, as also to distance, the Sacred Congregation has had the custom of leaving its decision to the prudence of the Ordinaries of Missions, upon whom the faculty depends, since they alone in the face of the places can weigh the circumstances concurring in particular cases. And in fact as far back as the year 1688 the Prefect of the Mission of Tunis (in Mauretania) had asked in general that it be declared what ought to be the number of faithful who otherwise would be deprived of Mass, and by reason of which bination could take place; and the General Congregation of Propaganda, on November 16, answered: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of Father Prefect. Similarly the Bishop of St. Louis in the Federated States of America, in the year 1828, after setting forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their consciences through the clauses of the formularies, had asked "whether, as often as thirty or fifty faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice." By letters of March 13, by order of Leo XII, it was rescripted to him "that you ought to put away every anxiety of soul and, without being moved by the rigor of the words, His Holiness commits to your conscience and prudence that you judge in what cases, account being taken 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, according to your conscience and prudence, you have judged that these grave causes exist, His Holiness benignly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt."

15. A similar response was given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who had proposed a doubt concerning distance: "In this region," he says, "from an ancient custom, license of binating is sometimes granted on account of moral necessity, although the nearer parish does not lie beyond the space of half a league; it is asked whether rightly." The S. C. of Propaganda, by letters of July 31, answered: "It being premised that it is the office of Bishops to care with all their strength that there be no need to use this faculty for succoring 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 deficient, and all other circumstances having been maturely weighed, it must be defined by the prudent judgment of the Superior whether in that case there concur grave circumstances which Doctors teach constitute a case of necessity (as the one proposed seems), in which room is made for a dispensation from the universal precept of not repeating the sacrifice by the same presbyter on the same day, and for the faculty of binating to be granted, which, from the words of the Apostolic indult itself, it is very clearly evident that he ought to use altogether sparingly." And the same instruction in the same words was given to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, by whom several doubts concerning bination had been proposed. It was rescripted to him on September 28 that, his questions having been considered, "the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction should be given which ... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg obtained under date July 31, 1851."

16. On the other hand, among the various responses which leave the judgment concerning the gravity of causes to the Superior, certain ones are worthy of particular mention, since they, without departing from the ordinary rule, namely, that the Superior himself ought to judge concerning the causes, at the same time indicate in some way the quality, or degree, of necessity required for bination, and at the same time temper somewhat the impression and soften the excessive anxiety which the clauses by which the faculty itself is restricted in the formularies had created for certain Bishops and Missionaries. One of such responses was given to a certain Bishop of the Federated States of America in the year 1848: "I come to your request" (thus in the letters dated May 9) "concerning the manner of interpreting the necessity which is required for the licit use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in the day. ... Therefore let Your Amplitude know that a necessity of this kind, of which there is question, is indeed understood to be true, but moral; not however absolute; concerning which, therefore, to judge in individual cases depends upon prudent judgment, with the circumstances having been inspected. It is necessary therefore that you beware in this matter of excessive anxiety in judging, lest the aforesaid faculty seem to have been granted in vain or to be reduced to act in almost no case." More noteworthy also is the declaration given to a certain Apostolic Prefect in the American Antilles. That Prefect, doubting whether he could tranquilly use the said faculty because of the grave conditions annexed to it, implores "a broader faculty from the Apostolic See of giving power to presbyters ... that on Sundays and feast days of precept they may celebrate Mass twice, when necessity or the spiritual utility of the faithful demands it." A relation having been made to the Most Holy One in the audience of April 13, it was answered to him in the following manner: "Such is the esteem for your virtue and prudence that Our Most Holy Lord ordered that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of soul; and if you judge it 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 in 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 the causes, and he has benignly declared that in those circumstances of things you have the faculty, through the mentioned Rescript, of giving power to priests to celebrate Mass twice."

17. The same rule of committing to the judgment or charity of the Superiors of Missions the application of general principles to practical cases has also been observed when in these, 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 is demanded by the clauses of that faculty. By this it is again confirmed that, in judging the reasons upon which the use of the faculty rests, great account is to be had of all the conditions and of the state of the faithful. This is clear from the response given by this Congregation in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the Tripolitan Mission, who, in doubt concerning the clauses often praised, had asked "for how many slaves or free men precisely he can celebrate the second Mass, since sometimes the case happened that in the bath outside the city of Tripoli not even ten or fifteen slaves were present at the Sacrifice of the Mass ... and whether, in defect of priests, he can for these alone celebrate another Mass." Notwithstanding the less favorable decision given in that very year by the Holy Office for a similar case, as was noted above in § 13, the S. Congregation of Propaganda on October 5 answered: "Let it be left to the charity and conscience of Father Vice-Prefect." Nor is it to be wondered at if Propaganda judged that room could be given to a more benign interpretation; for there was question of slaves, who on account of their condition deserved particular indulgence, since perhaps the Sacrifice of the Mass was their only consolation. Another argument of propensity toward a milder interpretation or connivance, account being taken of circumstances, the S. Congregation of the Inquisition gave in the year 1860; for although on June 20 it answered the Apostolic Vicar of a certain kingdom adjacent to China: "the desire of neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist twice or three times in the year is not of itself a most urgent cause, in the case of which there is question," i.e. of repeating Mass according to the faculty, nevertheless it added: "But, all circumstances of places and persons being weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Reverend Father Lord Apostolic Vicar." Hence it follows that those causes which in themselves, and therefore for many places, are not grave, can become such in certain other places because of circumstances.

18. These are the principles observed as to the faculty of binating, and they will undoubtedly serve to tranquilize the Ordinaries of Missions in its use. But although it is customary to defer to the prudent discretion of the Ordinaries of Missions, nevertheless it is clearly gathered from what has been said how greatly they ought to be cautious, since their conscience always remains burdened as to the legitimate use of so extraordinary a faculty. And yet (that we may conclude with the admonition given by the S. C. in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria) the usual clauses in the formularies "are not to be interpreted in extreme rigor, since the Apostolic See grants the said faculty for the spiritual utility of the faithful, and desires that all be able to fulfill the ecclesiastical precept."

19. It remains now that we treat of the rite and manner of bearing oneself in bination of Mass. Concerning this matter it will not be necessary to observe that it has always been prescribed to Missionaries by the Sacred Congregation and by Benedict XIV himself that he who is going to binate ought not to take the usual ablutions of the chalice on account of the fast, so that "if in the first Mass after the reception of the Body and Blood he has taken the purification, he ought not to celebrate the second Mass in the aforesaid cases,"⁸ i.e. even in those cases in which otherwise the faithful would be deprived of Mass on feast days. - Moreover, although by the decree of the S. Congregation of Rites in Elusitana on September 16, 1815, it had been prescribed that only one chalice should be used by one repeating Mass,

nevertheless, since the observance of this decree would involve no slight difficulties when the celebration had to take place in two churches distant from one another, the said Congregation, in the meetings held on September 12, 1857, moderating the preceding decree, declared: that the use of two chalices in the case can be permitted. The annexed Instruction,⁹ drawn up by mandate of the same S. R. Congregation, regards the manner of purification of the chalice which served for the first Mass.

From the Secretariat of the S. C. of Propaganda, May 24, 1870.