Article III: On the Application of the Sacrifice of the Mass

1596. APPLICATION is the intention of the mind by which the priest designates the person whom he wishes to become participant in the fruit of the Sacrifice. Concerning this application THREE things are asked: 1. whether it is required, so that the Sacrifice may profit the faithful; 2. what sort it ought to be; 3. for whom it can be made. Hence the following:

1597. Principles. I. That the special fruit of the Mass fall to him for whom it is offered, the application of the celebrant is NECESSARY. - The reason is that this fruit, proceeding from the Sacrifice insofar as it is the action of Christ, is strictly owed to no one; therefore, unless it is specially applied, it comes to no one.⁴

It is said 1. that the special fruit of the Mass; for the most general and general fruit, as also the most special, does not require application, since the faithful and the priest, insofar as they are offerers, certainly always perceive it.⁵

It is said 2. the application of the celebrant is necessary. For application is altogether proper to the celebrant, because it is an act of the power of Order. "Whence, if a Religious applies a Mass against the will of the Superior, he indeed applies illicitly, but validly; because the subject, with respect to the power of Order which he then uses, does not lie under the Prelate."⁶

It is asked: Whether the priest can apply the MOST SPECIAL fruit to others?

Resp. It is controverted, but authors more commonly deny. Therefore, since the application of this fruit is very uncertain, the following proposition was deservedly condemned by Alexander VII: "A doubled stipend can licitly be accepted by a priest for the same Mass, by applying to the one asking a part even of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII."⁷

1598. II. That application of the Mass be valid, it ought to be made before consecration, through an INTENTION at least habitual, and in some way determined. Thus commonly. - Therefore THREE CONDITIONS are required, namely:

1. It ought to be made before consecration, at least of the second species, lest it be exposed to danger of nullity; because the Sacrifice produces its effect while it is being completed, nor is that effect suspended.⁸ But it is probable that the Sacrifice is completed by consecration alone, as we said above (n. 1589, q. 1).

2. An intention at least habitual is required; for just as interpretative intention does not suffice, so neither is actual or virtual required, but habitual suffices, that is, had and not revoked. "The reason is that application of Mass has itself after the manner of a verbal donation, which, once made, is valid until it is expressly revoked."⁹ Here it can be asked: what application is to be judged valid if the priest, unmindful of the prior intention, elicits a new one? Resp. That one which is recognized as predominant. Therefore if the prior application was more universal and revocatory of the later, it is valid. If each were equal, the later would prevail, as happens in a testament. In doubt, it suffices that the priest on another occasion apply the Sacrifice to him to whom it was not applied the first time. For it is certain that one or the other application was valid.¹⁰

3. A determined intention is required, at least implicitly; for otherwise there would not be a reason why the fruit would fall to one rather than to another. But implicit determination suffices, because this, by some general term, already reaches persons in particular.

1599. Hence: 1. The application is valid if you say: "I offer this Sacrifice for him who gave the stipend"; "for whom the Superior wishes the Mass to be made"; "for whom the foundation requires"; "for the greatest sinner"; "for the soul afflicted by the graver temptation"; "for the soul of Purgatory more deserted than the rest, or more pleasing to God"; "for all the souls of Purgatory"; "for him to whom I am held to apply"; "for the person, or intention written or determined in the mind, at the beginning of the week," etc. - On the contrary, that application is not valid: "I offer that God, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, may apply, or may wish to apply, this Mass"; the reason is that, from the institution of Christ, it belongs to the priest, not to God or the Blessed Virgin Mary, to apply or determine the Sacrifice.¹¹

2. If someone accepts a stipend from ten persons for as many Masses, he does not seem to satisfy by applying individual Sacrifices for individuals indeterminately. But if he intended to apply each Mass to all those ten persons, by applying to each one the tenth part of each Mass, he satisfies well; because the fruit is divisible.¹²

3. If stipends have been received confusedly from diverse persons, the application is sufficiently determined if it is made according to the order in which the stipends were accepted, according to the axiom: "he who is prior in time is stronger in right." Whence, if you have accepted twenty stipends in this way, no other care is incumbent upon you, except that you make Mass twenty times, to the intention of the giver. Yet interruption can intervene, provided the Masses are celebrated within the due time.

4. Application under a condition already fulfilled is valid, for example: if Peter is dead, I apply for his soul; but not under a future contingent condition, for example: I apply to him for whom Titius, when asked, shall have wished.¹³

It is asked: Whether application to the intention of him who is going to offer the first stipend is valid?

Resp. Such application is certainly illicit, from the prohibition of Clement VIII, which Paul V promulgated on November 15, 1605, forbidding this custom "as dangerous under several names, liable to scandals of the faithful, and excessively aberrant from the ancient custom of the Church." Indeed, not rarely it would be invalid, for example if afterwards a stipend were offered for liberation from an illness, etc., which did not yet exist while the Mass was being applied; for, that this application be valid, the fruit of the Sacrifice would have to remain suspended until the existence of the illness, which does not seem credible. Nevertheless, if the priest foresees that shortly Masses are going to be requested from him for a deceased person, he can apply them meanwhile, and afterwards receive the stipends; because in this case they are already offered for a determined person.¹⁴

1600. III. The Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered both for the faithful LIVING, whether just or sinners, and for the DEAD in Christ and not yet fully purged. Thus Trent.¹⁵ - It is said: for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged; for it can be offered neither licitly nor validly for the damned, who are irrevocably separated from the Body of Christ. And the same must be said of children dead without Baptism, because these also have been constituted in an immutable state.¹⁶ But neither can it be offered for the Blessed, since they have already attained the end to which the fruits of the Mass are ordained. Yet it is licit to celebrate Masses in their honor, namely to this end, that thanks may be paid for the benefits which have been conferred on them by God, and that their patronage may be implored, or in other words, that they may deign to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we keep on earth.¹⁷

As regards the living, Mass, by reason of itself and with respect to valid application, can be offered for all human beings, no otherwise than the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. But if it ought not to be applied for some, this must be referred solely to the prohibition of the Church. Wherefore let there be the following:

1601. Questions. Q. 1. Whether it is licit to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the EXCOMMUNICATED?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. It is not licit for excommunicated persons to be avoided. Yet licitly "a priest can offer the action of sacrificing, insofar as it depends on the private merit of the one operating, for such an excommunicated person, or remember him in particular in the Memento."¹⁸

2. It is licit for tolerated excommunicated persons, according to the more probable opinion. "The reason is that favorable laws are to be understood with every breadth. Therefore when it was conceded to the faithful to communicate with the tolerated, it was also conceded to offer public prayers for them; for to communicate imports this also, as is had from cap. 28 and cap. 38, de sent. excomm."¹⁹ - And these things are valid both for the living and for the dead.

Q. 2. Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for INFIDELS, HERETICS, and SCHISMATICS?

Resp. 1. For these LIVING persons, especially for their conversion, it can be offered; for they are capable of at least impetratory fruits, and the certain prohibition of the Church extends itself only to excommunicated persons to be avoided, among whom the aforesaid are not to be numbered. It was requested: "Whether it is licit for priests to celebrate Mass for the intention of Turks and other Infidels, and to accept alms from them for the application of the Mass? - And the S. C. S. OFF. responded, July 12, 1865: "Affirmatively, provided scandal is not present, and nothing is specially added in the Mass, and, with respect to the intention, it is clear that nothing evil, or of error, or of superstition underlies in the Infidels bringing the alms."²⁰

Resp. 2. But indeed it is not licit publicly or solemnly to celebrate Mass for these same DEAD persons, even if the condition were added: if perhaps they died in good faith in only material heresy. "For these more secret mysteries of divine grace by no means pertain to the external judgment of the Church."²¹ And the general rule is that to those to whom ecclesiastical burial has had to be denied, other public suffrages of the Church are also denied. But it is licit privately to pray for them under the Memento of the dead in solemn Mass, or even secretly to apply the Mass of the day, not of Requiem, provided scandal is avoided. Thus, for example, a priest to whom a stipend for some heretic in particular is offered will be able to respond that he can apply the Mass of Requiem for all the faithful departed, with the intention of helping also the soul of that deceased person, if this is accepted before God.

Q. 3. Whether it is licit to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the FAITHFUL who died in the act of sin?

Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless, if ecclesiastical burial is to be denied to someone, Mass ought not to be celebrated publicly, that is, with the people knowing, for him. - Recall the things said at n. 1387.

Q. 4. Whether the Mass profits the DEAD from the infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Some deny; but others more truly and more commonly affirm. The reason is that, since it is of faith from Trent that Mass is usefully offered for the dead, this cannot happen except ex opere operato, that is, from the promise of Christ, which indeed is had in those words: "This is my Blood of the new Testament, which will be poured out for many unto remission of sins."¹

Q. 5. Whether a Mass OF REQUIEM profits the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

St. Thomas responds:² "On the part of the Sacrifice offered, it profits the deceased equally, of whatever Mass it is said; but on the part of the prayers, that one profits more in which there are prayers determined for this; yet this defect can be recompensed through the greater devotion either of him who says the Mass, or of him who orders it to be said, or again through the intercession of the Saint whose suffrage is implored in the Mass."

Q. 6. Whether, on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, Mass can be applied for SOME particular deceased person?

Resp. Affirmatively, from the decrees of the S. R. C. on August 4, 1663, and September 2, 1741,³ where it was said that on that day "Sacrifices can be applied at will by priests celebrating, namely either for all the faithful departed, or for some only." Wherefore nothing prevents a stipend from being accepted for that Mass.⁴

Q. 7. Whether one celebrating satisfies by a Mass OF REQUIEM to the intention of the giver, if what this is is wholly unknown?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the declaration of the S. R. C. on November 29, 1856.⁵ Hence it is concluded that a Mass of Requiem is validly applied for a living person; which also will be done licitly if a sufficient reason accedes, for example if other vestments are not had.

Q. 8. Whether a priest satisfies if, thinking him for whom he ought to celebrate as dead to be now dead, he celebrates for him while still living?

Resp. Negatively; because the error is essential. For each person, while he lives, can provide for his soul in various ways, for example by gaining indulgences, etc.; not likewise after death.⁶

Q. 9. Whether the fruits of the Mass can be DIVIDED, so that the impetratory fruit is applied to one, the satisfactory fruit to another?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion of the Doctors. Therefore in gratuitous Masses, the priest can divide the fruits at will. In Masses owed from obedience or fidelity, he can do this for that part of the fruit which he is not held to apply. Hence, for example, if a Mass is to be celebrated for thanksgiving, he can apply the satisfactory and impetratory fruit at will. But in Masses owed from stipend, this is not licit, since the whole applicable fruit is owed to the one giving the alms.⁷

Q. 10. What if the application is made TO NO ONE, or to one INCAPABLE?

Resp. The fruit, in this case, remains in the treasury of the Church. "But in practice, when it is doubted whether he for whom we offer is capable of the fruit or not, in gratuitous Masses it is advised to apply them either to ourselves, or to another under condition: if the person to whom they are applied is not capable. But in Masses owed from stipend, because probably the fruit falls to the benefit of the relatives of the one offering, from his implicit will, therefore then we cannot apply the fruit to whomever we wish, except under condition, lest prejudice be done to him to whom the obligation of applying is present."⁸

NB. Concerning Mass celebrated ON A PRIVILEGED ALTAR, see below, n. 1743.