§ 3. On the Obligation of Celebrating by Reason of Stipend

1607. The STIPEND of a Mass is called the alms which the faithful bestow on priests, that the Sacrifice may be offered to God for them or to their intention.

By reason of stipend, Masses are distinguished into adventitious and founded. ADVENTITIOUS or manual Masses are called those which, by reason of an offered stipend, are to be celebrated in a determined number. FOUNDED Masses are called those which, in perpetuity or at least for a long time, daily or on certain days, are to be celebrated and applied, by reason of a foundation, that is, of a good left to some ecclesiastical Institute with the burden that Masses be celebrated. Therefore the fruit of the foundation has the nature of a stipend.

These things having been premised, we shall speak: 1. concerning the liceity of a stipend; 2. concerning the office of one accepting a stipend; 3. concerning reduction and condonation of Masses.

1608. Principle. It is licit for any priest, even a rich one, to accept a JUST STIPEND for celebrating Mass. - St. Thomas brings forward the reason, saying: "The priest does not accept money as the price of consecration, but as the stipend of his support."¹⁵ And because even the rich are worthy of reward when they place some work worthy of price, it follows also that rich priests licitly exact a stipend.¹⁶

Hence, more probably, a priest who intends to offer principally on account of the stipend is not infected with the stain of simony, although he is not easily excused from venial sin, because the temporal thing is then accepted not as the price of the thing, but for the stipend of support.¹⁷

1609. Questions. Q. 1. What stipend is to be had as JUST?

Resp. "The just stipend of a Mass is not indeed the sustenance of one day, as some have said; for the priest, besides the action of sacrificing, can occupy himself in the rest of the day in preaching, teaching, and similar exercises, so that he may gain entire support; but it is that which has been fixed by the Bishop, or by custom, or at least by a prudent man, if a tax made by custom or by the Bishop is lacking."¹⁸ And this opinion is common and to be held from the declaration of the S. C. of the Council.¹⁹ - "Wherefore Roncaglia rightly says that if a testator left Masses to be celebrated, without the alms having been fixed, they are to be celebrated according to the common tax, or are to be taxed according to the custom of the place, as the S. C. C. also declared,²⁰ with account taken of a rich or small inheritance."²¹

Q. 2. Whether REGULARS are held under grave obligation to stand by the Bishop's tax?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion and from the decree of the S. C. of the Council,²² by which it was sanctioned thus: "The alms for any Mass whatever to be celebrated by Regulars in their churches is to be taxed by the judgment of the Ordinary, according to the custom of the region."²³

Q. 3. Whether it is licit for a priest to accept a stipend BELOW or ABOVE the tax?

Resp. 1. If only the law is considered, it is licit for a priest to obligate himself to celebrating Mass for a smaller alms, or below the tax; for anyone can yield his own right, and also celebrate without any stipend. But because remission of the customary alms can become damaging to other priests and in some way detract from the dignity of the Sacrifice itself, more probably it is licit for the Bishop to prohibit that an alms less than just be accepted, from the declaration of the S. C. of the Council.²⁴ "Wherefore, in the case in which the Bishop prohibits it, priests are altogether held to obey him." - Nevertheless, if someone knowingly has accepted smaller stipends, he ought to celebrate as many Masses as he promised, as the S. C. of the Council declared by order of Urban VIII in the year 1625;²⁵ nor can he licitly diminish their number, unless he acted ignorantly, as authors rightly concede.²⁶

Resp. 2. It is not licit for a priest to exact a stipend above the tax; for the Council of Trent commands Bishops that they altogether prohibit "importunate and ungenerous exactions of alms, rather than requests, and other things of this kind, which are not far from the simoniacal stain, or certainly from base gain."²⁷ Yet he can receive more, both from the spontaneous liberality of the giver, and the Bishop has no power to prohibit this, as was decided by the S. C. of the Council;²⁸ and from justice for extraordinary labor, for example for Mass to be celebrated at such an hour, or in such an inconvenient place. Whence requests are not illicit, indeed neither are agreements, provided they are just and moderate, and provided they are made without scandal.²⁹

Q. 4. Whether it is licit for one having faculty of celebrating twice in the day to accept a stipend for the second Mass?

Resp. Negatively, unless the Supreme Pontiff has indulged it.³⁰ It is clear from the Constitution Quod expensis of Benedict XIV, issued on August 26, 1748, and from various declarations of the S. C. of the Council.³¹ But neither is it licit to accept anything for the celebration alone, with the application remaining free. But for peculiar labor, for example by reason of a journey to a distant church, it is permitted, from the prudent judgment of the Bishop, to perceive something.³² - But under the aforesaid prohibition are not comprehended the three Masses which it is licit to celebrate on the solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord; for that repetition is conceded not from Indult, but from immemorial custom; whence it is licit to accept three stipends for three Masses.

But there are comprehended the two Masses which, from the concession of Benedict XIV, are permitted to be added in the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal on the day of the Commemoration of all the dead; unless somewhere another ancient privilege already existed.³³

1610. Principles. I. From acceptance of a stipend there arises an obligation OF STRICT JUSTICE to celebrate as many Masses as, by reason of the alms accepted, have been promised. - For, says Suarez, "there intervenes the true nature of justice, founded on mutual consent burdensome on both sides, which is explained by these words: I give that you may do; but this is a title of justice."³⁴

It is said to celebrate as many Masses, etc., since this 10th proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices, and to offer one Sacrifice." Moreover, the reason of the condemnation is both because the opinion which says that the Sacrifice is of finite value, both intensively and extensively, does not lack all probability; and because a stipend can be accepted only by the title of support; whence, one stipend having been accepted, the title for accepting another fails.

It is asked: Whether a priest OMITTING to celebrate a Mass owed either from stipend or from gratuitous promise sins gravely?

Resp. 1. He certainly sins gravely if the alms given is grave matter; and this is the unanimous opinion of authors. But according to the more probable opinion, he sins gravely also if the alms is only light matter. "The reason is that gravity of matter here is more probably to be measured not in order to the stipend, but to the fruit of the Mass, of which the one handing over the alms is deprived, to whom from privation of this kind grave damage certainly is brought."³⁵

Resp. 2. If he omits a Mass promised gratis, it is disputed. Others say that he sins gravely, on account of the reason just brought forward. "But others probably deny, because simple promise does not oblige under grave sin unless the one promising expressly obligates himself under grave sin.... But all agree that he sins gravely who omits a Mass owed from vow, or from the precept of a Prelate: because no one can doubt that this is grave matter in a vow or precept"³⁶ (cf. n. 628 and 1062).

1611. II. The obligation of celebrating from the acceptance of a stipend can, a peculiar stipulation being excluded, be fulfilled THROUGH ANOTHER; yet under this law, that the WHOLE STIPEND be handed over to him. The reason of the first is that, such stipulation being excluded, the obligation is only real, whence it suffices that the thing owed be furnished. - The reason of the second is that the priest "although he acquires ownership of the alms, nevertheless acquires it according to the will of those who give the alms; and he who furnishes the alms asks not only for a Mass, but also wishes that it be celebrated for such an alms; for a greater stipend makes him perceive richer fruit from the Sacrifice; and therefore this intention enters into the substance of the contract; therefore if the priest retains part of the stipend, he unjustly retains it against the will of the giver."¹ - And hence it is why the Church strictly prohibits that a priest who has undertaken a Mass to be celebrated with a certain stipend commit the same Mass to another to be celebrated, with part of the stipend retained for himself. Thus from the Decree of the S. C. C. approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII. And this 9th proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are handed over can satisfy through another, with a smaller stipend conferred on him, another part of the stipend retained for himself."²

Hence: 1. A procurator or executor of a testament is to be condemned for shameful gain, who causes Masses committed to himself to be celebrated where there is a smaller tax, so that thus he may retain the excess for himself.³ But an heir who, on account of an inheritance accepted, is held concerning Masses to be celebrated, can, if the place of celebration and the stipend have not been determined, commit them to any priests whatever to be celebrated.

2. He who, against the prohibition of the Church, retains part of a stipend for himself, not only sins, but is held to restitution. But this, according to the more common and more probable opinion, is to be made to the celebrant, "because, the burden having been transferred to him, the right also to the whole stipend is transferred according to the will of the lord."⁴

1612. From the aforesaid prohibition, namely that nothing be subtracted from the stipend, a threefold CAUSE can excuse: namely the will of the one bestowing the alms, the spontaneous yielding of the one undertaking the burden of celebrating, and concession of the Holy See.

1. The will of the one bestowing the alms excuses: for he can at will exceed the customary tax, either with the intention that the whole stipend fall to the celebrant, or with the intention that the excess fall to the one receiving. Nor, however, is it required that the one giving the stipend expressly manifest this intention of his. It suffices that from circumstances his will be morally clear. Hence, if for adventitious Masses a greater stipend is given, not so much in view of the Mass as of friendship, poverty, gratitude, kinship, etc., the priest can retain the excess for himself and commit the celebration of the Mass to another.⁵

As regards founded Masses, one must distinguish: if the intention of the founders was only that Masses be celebrated, the whole stipend is to be handed over to the celebrant. Thus from a recent decree of the S. C. C., in the Cologne case, July 18, 1868.⁶ But if by their mind they also intended to render better the incomes of the pastor or chaplain, the excess can be retained. And the same must be said, as is evident, if besides the celebration of Mass, other offices are to be fulfilled.

With respect to beneficiaries,⁷ it has been declared in the Bull Nuper of Innocent XII: "it is enough that the rector of a benefice, who can celebrate Mass through another, give to the priest celebrating a suitable alms, according to the custom of the city or province, unless something else has been provided in the foundation of the benefice."⁸ - The same must be said of a removable chaplain, "provided certain revenues for the chaplaincy have been established annually, and assigned perpetually to the chaplain; otherwise, however, if a certain alms is given to a chaplain of this kind for each Mass to be celebrated."⁹

2. The spontaneous and liberal yielding of the priest to whom the celebration is committed excuses; for just as he can remit the whole, so also a part. "Nevertheless, this is by no means to be admitted if you indicate the greater price accepted and ask the priest to remit it; or ask from him whether he consents that you retain a part; for then you cannot retain it, even if he agrees; for this in the Bull Quanta cura of Benedict XIV is asserted as an execrable abuse forbidden by several Pontiffs."¹⁰

3. Concession of the Holy See excuses. For the Roman Pontiff, by the supreme authority in which he has power in the Church, can concede that some part of the alms, the circumstances of things suggesting it, be retained. A concession of this kind in favor of poor churches was made through the Decree of the S. C. of the Council confirmed by Innocent XII. But in this Decree¹¹ it is read: "It is not to be permitted that churches and pious places, or their administrators, retain from the alms of Masses to be celebrated any portion, however minimal, by reason of the expenses which they undergo in the celebration of Masses, unless the churches and pious places have no other revenues which they can licitly expend for the use of the same expenses; and then what portion they will retain ought by no means to exceed the value of the expenses which necessarily must be undergone only for the very Sacrifice of the Mass; and nevertheless, even in that case, it must be cared for that from the monies which remain, expenses as above having been deducted, absolutely as many Masses be celebrated as had been prescribed by those offering the alms."¹² See also the Decree of the S. C. C., April 24, 1875.¹³

It is asked: Whether it is licit to EXCHANGE Masses, without unequal stipends being exchanged?

Resp. Such an exchange, principally if it is made by reason of retaining the greater stipend, seems to involve shameful gain, and therefore seems also to be disapproved: yet not under grave sin, especially if poverty excuses.¹⁴

1613. III. To make gain from stipends of Masses which are transmitted to others is most severely prohibited. For such a manner of acting very greatly dishonors the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice, and is a cause why this most august Sacrifice is held as of less account among the faithful. Concerning this matter these things are to be noted:

1. They are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff who "collect alms of greater price for Masses, and seek profit from them by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser price."¹⁵ These things have been more fully explained elsewhere (n. 1339).

2. The manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savors of shameful trade, and therefore is to be disapproved and, if there is need, restrained even by ecclesiastical penalties by Bishops, who, public invitations and rewards being employed, or in any other way whatever, collect alms for Masses, and to priests to whom they commit them to be celebrated, pay not money, but books or other merchandise. Nor can this manner of acting be made honorable because the Masses are celebrated in the due number, or because in this way help is given to poor priests lacking alms of Masses, or because the gain which is drawn from the exchange of merchandise with alms is expended not for the proper advantage of those collecting, but for the use and increase of pious institutions and good works. - Wherefore it is not licit to cooperate in a manner of acting of this kind, whether by handing over alms for Masses to those collecting, or by accepting the burden of celebrating Masses.¹⁶

3. Priests do not act illicitly who for Masses celebrated receive books or other merchandise in place of a stipend, any species of negotiation or shameful profit being excluded.¹⁷

But whether the moderators or administrators of religious newspapers are to be disapproved, who commit Masses to be celebrated to priests, retaining from their alms the price corresponding in the case to those same newspapers? To this question the S. C. OF THE COUNCIL responded:¹⁸ "Negatively, provided nothing is subtracted from the will of the founders concerning the quantity of the stipend, the place and time of the celebration of Masses, every studied collection of Masses being excluded, and the one to whom it belongs by law being informed concerning the completed celebration of the Masses, the matter having been mentioned to the Most Holy."

1614. IV. All CIRCUMSTANCES of celebration which the one giving the alms stipulated are to be observed religiously. - The reason is that a true contract, I give that you may do, intervened, which induces obligation.

It remains that certain particular things, both concerning adventitious Masses and concerning founded Masses, be weighed in this place.

1615. I. TIME OF CELEBRATION. Adventitious Masses must, under grave obligation, be celebrated either at the established time, or within a moderate time, unless the one offering the stipend consents to delay.

It is said 1. at the established time, if indeed it has been expressly determined. Yet delay to the following day seems able to be excused, unless the one asking for the Mass fixed this day on account of a grave cause, or also offered a greater stipend to this end.¹⁹

It is said 2. or within a moderate time, if indeed none has been fixed beforehand. But the moderation of time must be taken altogether relatively.

And indeed: 1. any delay is to be judged grave by which the one asking for the Mass would be frustrated in the intended end. Wherefore a priest sins gravely "if he omits, within a time suitable for celebration, a Mass asked for the obtaining of some urgent grace, say for a happy childbirth, for escaping danger, for winning a lawsuit, etc. The reason is that the circumstance of time then pertains to the substance of the thing asked; whence, that time having passed, the priest is held to restore the stipend, and to warn the giver concerning the Masses omitted at the suitable time."²⁰ 2. "In Masses for the dead, many theologians deservedly regard a delay of one month as grave."²¹ 3. In other Masses, a delay of two months is to be judged grave; wherefore satisfaction must be made within two months, with this exception: unless the Holy See has conceded a delay; cf. n. 1620.

It is said 3. unless the one offering consents to delay. For to one knowing and willing, no injury is done. Thus also the S. C. C. defined.²² - Now, such consent is presumed by the fact itself if someone offers many Masses, for example 200, to a priest to be celebrated by the priest himself. Not likewise "when Masses are handed over to a community of several priests to be celebrated; because then he who gives the alms for many Masses is presumed to wish them to be celebrated sooner. Yet this is not to be understood as though all the priests of that community ought to occupy themselves in satisfying Masses of this kind, but that they ought not to defer as long as would be necessary if those Masses were committed to one person. Hence, I say then the whole number can be distributed among the individuals of the community, or at least among the greater part of it, if it is more numerous; and this distribution having been made, the whole community will be able to satisfy within only as much time as would be conceded to each member of the community for satisfying his own proportion. For Holzmann well says that those committing these numerous Masses can easily foresee that the community has other obligations."²³

1616. II. PLACE OF CELEBRATION AND KIND OF MASS. The celebrant who does not observe the condition of PLACE sins more or less gravely, according to the greater or lesser repugnance of him who gave the alms. - Indeed, if the place was intended equally principally, for example the Holy House of Loreto, he is held to restore the stipend.

One obligated to celebrate at a privileged altar satisfies by using a personal privilege;²⁴ and he who celebrated without satisfying the obligation undertaken is not now held to restitution of the stipend, but only to gaining a plenary indulgence applicable for the dead.²⁵ Thus the S. IND. C., February 22, 1847. But before the fact, it is not licit so to establish with oneself. The same Congregation, July 24, 1885.²⁶

Not to observe the KIND of Mass, for example if you celebrate the Mass of the occurring feast for a votive Mass or of Requiem, even when this is conceded by the Rubrics, does not exceed venial sin, since the substance of the Mass is equally had; wherefore the celebrant can also retain the stipend. - But if for a just cause the priest has acted thus, for example for observing the Rubrics, he has sinned in no way.²⁷

1617. Masses can be founded either for a time, or in perpetuity. Wherefore we note from the sacred Canons the following:

1. Perpetual burdens of Masses cannot be undertaken by secular priests without the written license of the Bishop or Vicar General. - But among Regulars, license of the Superior General or Provincial is required, as is clear from the decree Cum saepe of the S. C. of the Council, issued by the authority of Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII through the Bull Nuper in the year 1697.

2. A beneficiary who has a benefice or chaplaincy with the burden of Masses ought, notwithstanding any custom whatever, to apply those Masses for the founders, or to their intention. - But indeed "when, in the foundation of a benefice or chapel, it has been expressly provided that the celebrant is not held to application of the Sacrifice, in that case the celebrant will be able to accept a new stipend, and by one Mass satisfy the obligation of the benefice or chapel, and likewise the one giving the new stipend." Decree of the S. C. C., July 13, 1630.¹ - "But when it had been asked from the S. C. on March 18, 1668, whether Masses ought to be applied for the testator when in the testament nothing had been declared concerning application, the S. C. C. responded that they are to be applied for the testator. - And the same was declared, on February 6, 1627, concerning chaplains who celebrate so that confreres or Nuns may be present at the Mass; since it is said that they cannot receive a stipend."² Moreover, "unless it is expressed in the institution of the chaplaincy that the chaplain celebrate by himself, he can always celebrate through another."³

3. Chaplains, Beneficiaries, etc., who from the law of foundation are held to apply Mass only on feast days, are still bound to apply on reduced feasts, as pastors are; for reduced feasts are always held in the Church as feasts of precept. Thus from the Letters Paternae charitati of Pius VII, April 10, 1818⁴ (cf. also n. 891, 1).

4. Canons, in cathedral and collegiate Churches, ought to celebrate daily the conventual Mass for their benefactors; although these, in their donations, had made absolutely no agreement for themselves, but had only declared that they offered their goods to God for the remission of their sins; and although contrary custom, even immemorial, flourished somewhere. - Indeed, where the custom flourishes of applying a second or even third Mass for them, the Bishop ought to command that this custom be kept holily; but where it does not flourish, at least in the Memento of the second and third conventual Mass, let a commemoration of them be made. Thus Benedict XIV, Const. Cum semper.⁵

5. A priest who, on account of a benefice or chaplaincy, is held to celebrate daily can, from the common opinion, sometimes omit the celebration of Mass if a legitimate cause intervenes, for example devotion, reverence toward the Sacrifice, or infirmity not exceeding 15 days, indeed, Lugo says probably, even if the infirmity were prolonged for two months. He can also probably, provided he does not accept a stipend, celebrate four or six times in the year for himself or for a very dear friend; for this is reasonably presumed from the mind of the founder. Otherwise, however, if he had expressed the contrary; for example by saying: "I will that Mass be celebrated daily, by the chaplain or by another"; or also: "I will that, in such a church, Mass be celebrated daily," etc.⁶

6. It is not licit to celebrate founded Masses in another church, on another altar, or at another hour than those which were established by the founder. Nor is this obligation light if the founder stipulated circumstances of this kind on account of a grave cause, for example on account of the memory or convenience of his own family, or of the people. But if no special end gave occasion to the stipulation, or if the cause why it was made no longer exists, for example if the family is extinct, or if it dwells elsewhere: the aforesaid obligation will not be grave; indeed, it will be null if the priest compensates it by celebrating on a privileged altar.⁷ Otherwise, the obligation is so grave that the priest would sin mortally if he often, or without cause, or without dispensation, omitted or changed those circumstances. "I said often; for he will sin only venially if he does it rarely, say once or twice in the month; and he is more easily excused if he changes only the altar, and not the church. Likewise, I said without cause; for he will by no means sin if he celebrates elsewhere from a just cause, say if the altar is execrated, or because, having come out of the sacristy, he saw that it was occupied by another. - Likewise, I said without dispensation; for the BISHOP can well dispense that celebration be made in another place, from a reasonable cause, say on account of the utility of one's own church, etc."⁸ For this faculty belongs to Bishops, as Delegates of the Holy See, as is commonly drawn from Trent.⁹ But where the transfer is opposed to the express will of the testator, or to divine worship, or to the convenience of the people, it is not customarily conceded by the S. Congregation of the Council, and in that case Bishops cannot dispense.¹⁰

1618. It is asked: Whether PRESCRIPTION can be made against burdens of Masses?

Resp. Some affirm; "but, according to the truer opinion, such prescription is not admitted, since in Trent¹¹ it is forbidden that derogation can be made from all burdens imposed, both in foundation and in any other pious disposition or conferral of benefices; and Pius IV in the Bull by which he confirmed the Council declared void whatever might be done in the future against it.... But an irritating clause binds even the ignorant, and in beneficial causes infects title and possession. At least we say, in practice the first opinion can be probable with difficulty, since good faith can with difficulty be presumed in beneficiaries, since it is rather presumed that they know the laws of the benefice."¹²

Note. - 1. Authors notice that it is most opportune that any priest note in a book the Masses accepted and the Masses celebrated by himself, so that thus, even in the case of unexpected death, all things become known to the heirs. 2. But this is altogether prescribed by Innocent XII to all rectors and ministers of churches, whether secular or regular, that each year they be able to render an account to their Superiors concerning Masses celebrated, whether they are perpetual, temporary, or even manual. - And moreover, the table of perpetual and temporary burdens must be exposed in a more visible and obvious place, to guard against burdens of Masses being undertaken beyond their strength, from the Bull Nuper.

1619. REDUCTION of Masses is properly called that by which burdens of Masses are constrained to a lesser number for future time, whether this is done in perpetuity or for an established time. - When reduction is referred to past time and imports the omitted celebration of Masses, then it is properly called remission, absolution, and CONDONATION.¹³

1620. Principles. I. Reduction of Masses, today, can be made only by the APOSTOLIC SEE, but not by the Bishop, nor by a regular prelate. - This is evident from the Constitution Nuper of Innocent XII, § 1, where it is said thus: "It is strictly prohibited that Bishops... in any way reduce any burdens of Masses to be celebrated, either imposed after the same Council or at the threshold of foundation; but for all these to be reduced, moderated, or commuted, recourse is to be had to the Apostolic See."¹⁴ The same applies both concerning condonation and concerning concession of a longer time for fulfilling burdens of Masses.¹⁵ Only in a twofold case does the right of reducing Masses belong to Bishops: 1. if the testator himself has granted this faculty to the Bishop; 2. if the Holy See has conceded such privilege to Bishops, as frequently obtains.

1621. II. Reduction or condonation of Masses can be made only when a JUST CAUSE intervenes. This is evident of itself. - "But the CAUSES from which the Apostolic See is accustomed to reduce Masses are scarcity of priests, smallness of stipend, or increase of the current stipend, diminution of the revenues of a monastery, or greater expenses necessary for living, etc.; finally if necessity of the brethren, or of the fabric of the church or monastery, urges."¹⁶

Note. For obtaining reduction or condonation, recourse is made to the Holy See, through the S. C. of the Council, or through the Fabric of St. Peter. - But when the Holy See grants CONDONATION on account of just causes, it always imposes some salutary penance, and especially the penance of celebrating a certain number of Masses. - Moreover, it supplies from its spiritual treasury whatever has been sinned in fulfilling the burdens; and for the suffrage of souls for whom the omitted Sacrifices ought to have been offered, it commands that a suitable number of Masses be celebrated daily by the chaplains assigned to this office in the Vatican Basilica. But if someone, with the intention of obtaining a condonation of this kind, has presumed to omit the celebration of Masses, in this case, the grace in no way suffices, and hope of this kind, as irrational and illicit, is condemned and reprobated.¹⁷

If it concerns only the internal forum, that is, if someone omitted either founded or adventitious Masses without the omission being publicly established, and has become unable to satisfy: for condonation, recourse can be made to the S. Penitentiary, namely through the confessor, who ought to conceal the name of the penitent.

1622. III. To Bishops belongs the faculty of INTERPRETING, in doubt, the will of founders, and of reducing burdens of Masses undertaken by contract to equity. For in these things Bishops use their judicial power, which is proper to ordinary jurisdiction; wherefore, if they pronounce concerning an obligation constituted or not constituted, concerning a burden resolved or not resolved, etc., they do not exceed the limits prescribed to them by common law. Nor then is there place for reduction at the Holy See (cf. n. 1083 and 1087, q. 2).

It is asked: Whether sometimes a chaplain, or beneficiary, can by himself diminish the number of Masses?

Resp. "If the revenues fail in whole, without his fault, it is certain he is not held to celebrate Masses," as is commonly taught and as the S. C. C. defined.¹⁸ "But if the revenues fail in part, it also seems certain that the chaplain can diminish Masses, in the case in which the testator designated a suitable alms, for example three small coins for each Mass; because then, just as the number of Masses would have to be increased if the revenues were increased, so it is to be diminished if the revenues are diminished."¹⁹

NB. It is greatly to be desired that those who impose perpetual burdens of Masses, in the very act of foundation, grant to the beneficiary or Bishop the faculty of reducing their number, in the case in which the revenues are diminished.