Article IV. On the Obligation by Reason of an Accepted Stipend

262. 1. The origin of stipends. Mass stipends derive their origin from the offerings of the faithful (bread and wine), which were offered amid the solemnities of the Mass in the primitive Church. From these offerings were chosen those things which were necessary for the consecration and for the Communion of the faithful; the remainder, however, was distributed among the clergy and the poor. Gradually offerings of bread and wine of this kind ceased, and in their place the faithful offered money, especially in those regions where wine and grain could not be had so easily. At first money was offered in the Mass itself, just as even in our days such offerings of money are sometimes made during Mass. From the eighth century onward, the rather general practice seems to have been introduced of offering money outside Mass with the intention that the ministerial fruit of the Mass be applied for the offerers. From all these things it is evident that Mass stipends are not payment for the Mass, but rather offerings for the support of clerics.³⁶¹

2. The lawfulness of a stipend. It is lawful for any priest to accept a just stipend for the application of the ministerial fruit, not indeed as the price of the sacrifice - for this would be simony - but as a certain aid to honorable support.³⁶² For those who serve the altar can also live from the altar.³⁶³ Wherefore even those priests who have sufficient revenues from elsewhere can nevertheless accept Mass stipends. For just as a beneficiary is not bound to live from his own private goods, but can use the revenues of the benefice, so a priest sacrificing for others can accept Mass stipends from them. A priest, however, who celebrates Mass solely because of the stipend, and who otherwise would not celebrate, does not indeed commit direct simony, since he does not intend precisely to sell the Mass, but nevertheless he acts inordinately and for the most part sins venially. If, however, he expends the money received for good or pious uses, he does not seem to sin when led by this intention.³⁶⁴

The Church gravely prohibits a priest from accepting several stipends for the same Mass,³⁶⁵ and this even if he applies both the ministerial and the most special or personal fruit.³⁶⁶ Therefore as many Masses must be celebrated and applied as the stipends, even small ones, which have been given and accepted.

³⁶¹ Cf. Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec. l. 5, c. 8, and especially Inst. eccl. LVI.

³⁶² Code of Canon Law, c. 824, § 1.

³⁶³ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:13; St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 2. Wherefore Pius VI condemned as rash and injurious to the Church and her ministers the proposition (54) of the Synod of Pistoia asserting that it is a shameful abuse to receive an alms for celebrating Masses (Denz., n. 1554).

³⁶⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 55, q. 5, and l. 6, n. 317.

³⁶⁵ Cf. proposition 10 condemned by Alexander VII and the Code of Canon Law, c. 825, n. 3.

³⁶⁶ Cf. above, n. 240.

264. 3. The obligation from an accepted stipend. From an accepted stipend there arises a grave obligation of justice to say Mass, and this with those conditions which were imposed by the giver of the stipend and freely accepted by the priest.

The reason is that a legitimate contract (do ut facias) has been entered into between the offerer of the stipend and the priest, which gives rise to an obligation of justice for each contracting party, namely, that the offerer leave his money at the free disposition of the priest, and that the priest perform those things which the offerer required. Hence a priest who, after accepting a stipend, does not apply Mass according to the intention of the offerer gravely injures justice and is bound to restitution. Thus holds the most common and certain opinion.

Although certain theologians, such as Billuart, Sporer, and Elbel,³⁶⁷ opined that a priest does not sin gravely by the omission of a Mass if the stipend offered is only light matter, nevertheless it is almost certain that a priest, even though the stipend accepted is small, sins gravely if he omits the Mass. The reason is twofold: 1. because the offerer is unjustly deprived of a great spiritual good, such as the ministerial fruit of the Mass; 2. because the priest transgresses a most grave precept of the Church.

It is another question whether in this case the priest not only sins gravely but is also bound to restitution. "A priest who has not satisfied his obligation is not bound under grave sin to restore the stipend unless the stipend constitutes a relatively grave sum." Thus Noldin³⁶⁸ and others. This opinion, however, seems scarcely probable. For nearly all teach that the omission of one Mass for which a stipend has been accepted is an objectively mortal sin against strict justice. But every violation of strict justice joined with an objectively grave sin also induces a grave obligation of restitution. Hence, for example, a priest who by theft took three francs from a rather wealthy man would not be bound under grave sin to restitution, since the thing taken is light matter. But if the same priest received from the same man a Mass stipend of three francs and did not discharge it, he would sin gravely and would be bound under grave sin to restitution. The reason is that in the case of theft the natural law alone obliges to restitution; but in the case of a Mass not said for an accepted stipend, the grave obligation of ecclesiastical law is added to the natural law. Other writers, however, prefer to say that in this case the priest is not indeed bound under grave sin to restore the accepted stipend, but that he must under grave sin take care that the omitted Mass be said by himself or by another priest. The two manners of speaking are not essentially different.^368a

³⁶⁷ Cited by St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 317, Question 3.

³⁶⁸ De sacr.¹⁷, n. 186.

^368a Cf. Cappello, De sacr., n. 669.

265. The contract which is entered into between the giver of the stipend and the celebrating priest is not a contract of sale and purchase, because otherwise there would be simony, as has already been said. More truly, this contract is reduced to the unnamed contract: Do ut facias. Once this contract has been entered into, the stipend immediately passes into the ownership of the priest, and accordingly, if it perishes culpably or inculpably, it perishes for the priest, who must nevertheless say the promised Mass. Thus at least if there is question of a stipend for manual Masses;³⁶⁹ but if the goods given for founded Masses have perished, the obligation of saying the founded Masses no longer seems to be present. In practice, the case must be referred to the bishop or to the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which alone can reduce the burdens of Masses. Although the accepted stipend immediately passes into the ownership of the priest, nevertheless it is more advisable, and sometimes even commanded, not to disburse the money before the Mass has been said.

4. The obligation of the circumstances. The obligation arising from a stipend extends not only to saying the Mass itself, but also to all the circumstances tacitly or expressly stipulated. Circumstances of this kind are those of place, time, a privileged altar, a votive Mass, and Gregorian Masses.

³⁶⁹ Some authors, such as Gasparri (De euchar., n. 588) and Génicot (Theol. mor. II, n. 230), think but do not prove that a priest is not obliged to say manual Masses whose stipend has perished without his fault, for example, by theft. The Code of Canon Law, c. 829, establishes the contrary: "Although, without the fault of him who is burdened with the obligation of celebrating, the alms for Masses already received have perished, the obligation does not cease."

266. a) The circumstance of place and time. If it is established that the offerer or founder of the stipend gravely intended the place and time, for example, that the Mass be said at an altar where a miraculous image is preserved, or on such a feast, then the priest is bound under grave sin to observe this circumstance; if he neglects it, he must restore the stipend accepted. But if the intention of the offerer or founder was not so grave concerning these circumstances, the obligation of the priest is lighter.

If the offerer expressly prescribed no time for the celebration of manual Masses, a distinction must then be made: a) Masses offered for an urgent cause must be celebrated as soon as possible within a useful time, for example, Masses for the recovery of health, for a happy delivery, etc. b) In other cases, Masses must be celebrated within a moderate time according to the greater or smaller number of Masses.³⁷⁰

But if the offerer expressly left the time of celebration to the discretion of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which pleases him more, yet in such a way that no one is permitted to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated personally that he cannot satisfy them within a year.³⁷¹ Therefore, the provisions formerly made concerning this matter by the decree Ut debita of May 11, 1904, now no longer have anything except directive force. It had been established that the useful time for celebrating one accepted Mass was one month, and for celebrating one hundred Masses, six months, or another longer or shorter space of time according to the greater or smaller number of Masses. When it is established in c. 835 that no one can licitly accept so many Masses as he himself will not be able to say within a year, this seems to be understood unless the offerer expressly consents to a delay beyond a year. For no reason is apparent why an offerer cannot commission Masses to be said beyond the space of a year.³⁷² He who has Masses to be celebrated by others is to distribute them as soon as possible; but the legitimate time for their celebration begins from the day on which the priest who is to celebrate receives them, unless something else is established.³⁷³

All, whether clerics or laymen, who are obliged to fulfill burdens of Masses must, at the end of the year, hand over to their proper Ordinaries those Masses which they have not yet discharged, unless the number of Masses remaining is small or the intention of the offerers permits their further retention.³⁷⁴ I say: all, whether clerics or laymen. For laymen are sometimes administrators of pious causes, or by force of a testament or legacy must take care that a certain number of Masses be said. In these or similar cases laymen are bound to take care that the prescribed Masses be said within a year. The year must be computed in two ways: For quasi-manual Masses the obligation to hand them over to the Ordinary begins on December 31 of that year in which the Mass ought to have been said. For example, a founded Mass is to be said on May 30; if it has not been discharged by December 31 of the same year, it must be handed over to the local Ordinary. If there is question of manual Masses, the obligation to hand them over to the Ordinary arises 365-366 days after the stipend was accepted.³⁷⁵

³⁷⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 834.

³⁷¹ Ibid., c. 835.

³⁷² Thus also Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, n. 297 (5).

³⁷³ Code of Canon Law, c. 837.

³⁷⁴ Thus the cited decree, n. 4. The proper Ordinaries of exempt religious are their major superiors.

³⁷⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 841, § 2.

267. b) The circumstance of a privileged altar. If the offerer expressly requested that Mass be said at a privileged altar, this condition must be fulfilled. What a local, personal, and mixed privileged altar is will be said below in n. 564.

Let these things be said briefly: A Mass celebrated at a privileged altar has attached to it a plenary indulgence to be gained for the person for whom the Mass is offered. The application of the Mass and the application of the indulgence cannot be separated in such a way that the Mass is said for one person and the indulgence applied for another.³⁷⁶ An altar is privileged for one deceased person, not for many at the same time. A privileged altar for both the living and the deceased is rarely granted. A Mass offered at a privileged altar for a deceased person no longer must be a Requiem Mass, although this is fitting, as was formerly prescribed.³⁷⁷ A local privileged altar designates in certain churches a particular fixed altar, but not a portable one. A personal privileged altar is a pontifical indult granted to certain priests to celebrate Mass sometimes at any altar whatsoever, with which a plenary indulgence is joined. If a priest bound to celebrate at a privileged altar omitted this through forgetfulness, even in good faith, he cannot compensate for it by the application of another plenary indulgence.³⁷⁸

³⁷⁶ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, January 23, 1901. Cf. Analecta ecclesiastica, 1895, p. 83 ff.

³⁷⁷ Holy Office, February 20, 1913 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis V, 122).

³⁷⁸ Cf. below, in the treatise on indulgences, n. 565.

268. c) The circumstance of a determinate votive Mass. This circumstance seems to bind only under light sin, unless it is certainly established that the offerer of the stipend strongly intended a special votive Mass. Hence, for example, a priest who said the Mass of the day in place of a votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary seems to have satisfied the substantial obligation. Likewise theologians commonly teach that the obligation of celebrating for the living is satisfied by a Requiem Mass, and the obligation of celebrating for the deceased by the Mass of a saint. It is plainly not fitting, however, that a Requiem Mass be applied for the living unless there is a just cause, for example, because only black vestments are available.

269. d) The circumstance of Gregorian Masses. This circumstance binds rather gravely and consists in this: that thirty Masses be said on thirty consecutive days for the soul of one deceased person,³⁷⁹ whether by one priest or by several priests. Today no plenary indulgence is joined to these Gregorian Masses, but it is piously believed that through the special intercession of St. Gregory the soul of the deceased is specially assisted by these Masses.³⁸⁰ From Holy Thursday until Easter exclusively, the number of these Masses can licitly be interrupted.³⁸¹ On the Nativity of the Lord only one Mass can be counted toward the Gregorian Masses. If a priest inculpably omitted a Mass of this kind on one day, he is not certainly bound to begin the entire number again, but it seems sufficient simply to complete the thirtieth number, because that burden would be too hard, nor is it established that the soul of the deceased suffered notable injury from this omission, especially if the priest celebrates the Mass at a privileged altar.³⁸²

³⁷⁹ It is not lawful to apply these Masses either for several deceased persons or for the living (Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, August 24, 1888).

³⁸⁰ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, March 15, 1884, and August 24, 1888.

³⁸¹ Benedict XIV, Inst. eccl. 34, n. 22.

³⁸² It is certainly safer, as is evident of itself, in this case to begin the set of thirty again or to seek remission from the Holy See. Cf. Larraga-Sanchez, Prontuario⁹, n. 1273; Monitore ecclesiastico XIII, 40; Marc, Inst. Alphons.¹⁶ II, n. 1622.

270. 5. The amount of the stipend need not be such as furnishes the priest his entire support on the day on which he celebrates; for the act of sacrificing does not require an entire day, and before receiving the subdiaconate the priest ought to have procured for himself another title of support. With account taken of the circumstances of places and times, the stipend must be measured according to the law established by the bishop or introduced by legitimate custom; or, in other words: The diocesan rate must be observed by all. Even exempt religious are subject to diocesan law in this matter,³⁸³ and therefore they cannot, at least from diocesan persons, either demand a greater stipend or ordinarily accept manual Masses for a lesser stipend, at least if the local Ordinary has prohibited this.³⁸⁴ For foundations of Masses, however, exempt religious are not bound to the diocesan rate.³⁸⁵

Nothing prevents any priest from accepting a larger stipend which is spontaneously offered by the faithful.³⁸⁶ But if, beyond the alms fixed by the bishop, the priest who is to celebrate demands more for the Mass itself, he not only transgresses the law of the Church but also injures commutative justice;³⁸⁷ yet he probably does not commit the sin of simony.³⁸⁸ It is lawful, however, to demand a larger stipend because of special temporal burdens joined to the Mass. For then not the Mass itself, but something accidental and temporal, is appraised at a material price. Thus, for example, it is lawful to demand more for a sung Mass, for a Mass to be said at a late hour, or in a distant place. But it is not lawful to demand more for a Mass to be said at a privileged altar or before a miraculous image, because simony would then be committed by selling a spiritual favor for a temporal price.

If someone offered a sum of money, for example, one hundred dollars, for the application of Masses without indicating their number, the offering is reckoned according to the alms of the place in which the offerer resided, unless it must be legitimately presumed that his intention was otherwise. Therefore, if the offerer resides in the United States, where the Mass stipend is customarily one dollar, the stipend of one dollar can be taken even here in Europe.

But if someone by testament or legacy commissioned Masses to be celebrated and did not determine the amount of the stipend, either a) recourse must be had to the bishop so that he may prescribe a fitting stipend, or b) the stipend must be fixed according to the custom of the place in which the offerer resided,³⁸⁹ or according to the legitimately presumed will of the testator.

It is evident of itself that a priest can, at least on some occasions, celebrate Mass from charity either without a stipend or with a reduced stipend. He must take care, however, lest prejudice to other priests be generated by this manner of acting.

³⁸³ Code of Canon Law, c. 831, § 3.

³⁸⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 8, 1905.

³⁸⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 1550.

³⁸⁶ Ibid., c. 832.

³⁸⁷ Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 16, 1649, and March 2, 1861.

³⁸⁸ Cf. above, II, n. 563.

³⁸⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 830.

271. 6. Surplus Masses to be handed over to others. In recent years the Sacred Congregation of the Council has issued many provisions concerning the manner in which a priest can hand over to others the Mass stipends he has accepted. The principal provisions are these:

a) Founded, quasi-manual, and manual Masses are distinguished.³⁹⁰

Founded Masses are those whose stipends are received from the revenues of foundations and which are to be celebrated in perpetuity in some determinate church or at a determinate altar, for example, certain chaplaincies. We do not now treat of these here, since the conditions imposed by the testator must be diligently observed, and no one except the Supreme Pontiff can dispense from them.

Quasi-manual Masses are those which are indeed founded in some church or annexed to some benefice, but which can licitly, by law or by an indult of the Holy See, be handed over to other priests to be said elsewhere.

Manual Masses are those which the faithful request to be celebrated after offering a manual stipend. It matters little whether the stipends were given from hand to hand or proceeded from a testamentary disposition, provided, however, that the money handed over does not constitute a perpetual foundation to be discharged altogether in a determinate place. Likewise counted among manual Masses are those which indeed burden the patrimony of some private family in perpetuity but are not established in any church. These Masses can be discharged anywhere by any priests at the discretion of the family.³⁹¹

b) "It is lawful for no one to assume more Masses than he himself probably cannot satisfy within a year from the day the obligation was undertaken, yet always without prejudice to the will of the offerers," who can either grant a longer time or require a determinate shorter time.³⁹² At the end of the year, however, surplus Masses must be handed over to the Ordinary. Cf. what was said above concerning this matter, and especially concerning the manner in which the year or time within which the priest must discharge surplus Masses of this kind which he has received is to be computed.

³⁹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 826.

³⁹¹ Ibid.

³⁹² Decree Ut debita, May 11, nn. 3 and 4.

272. c) A priest who has surplus Masses can transmit them: a) to the Ordinary or to the Holy See, and then by the very act of handing them over he is freed from every obligation before God and the Church;³⁹³ b) to other priests, provided that it is established for him that they are "above every exception," that is, truly worthy or commended by the testimony of their own Ordinary.³⁹⁴ In this case, however, the first priest is not freed from the obligation undertaken until he has obtained from the other testimony of the accepted obligation and of the stipend received.³⁹⁵

He who wished to send stipends to priests of an Eastern rite had to do this through the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith or to apostolic delegates for the priests of their district.³⁹⁶ Nevertheless, it is lawful to send stipends to the East to priests of the Latin rite, with the same clauses which must be observed in transmission to another priest in the West. Hence stipends can be sent directly to delegates, vicars, and prefects apostolic; likewise religious priests can send stipends to their confreres living in the East; but if they wish to send them to religious of another regular institute, it is safer to hand them over to the superior general of the same institute residing in the West.

Since nothing special has been established in the Code of Canon Law concerning the transmission of stipends to Eastern priests, the decisions just indicated no longer seem to have preceptive force, but only directive force.

³⁹³ Decree Ut debita, May 11, n. 6.

³⁹⁴ Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 838, which therefore somewhat mitigated the decree Ut debita. A bishop cannot prohibit a priest from sending stipends for manual Masses outside the diocese; it is otherwise with founded or quasi-manual Masses, or with Masses offered not to some priest but to some sanctuary subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 19, 1921 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XII, 230).

³⁹⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 839.

³⁹⁶ Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 22 and September 9, 1907.

273. d) It is prohibited by means of Masses to buy or sell books, sacred utensils, or any other things whatsoever, whenever this becomes a habitual practice and tends toward the support of some commerce.³⁹⁷ Nevertheless, the custom existing in several places is tolerated whereby assistant priests say Masses and receive their support for them from the pastor.³⁹⁸

Experience establishes that by transactions and acceptances of this kind some commerce, at least a disguised commerce, which is rather unbecoming is carried on. But he who acts otherwise, or illicitly retains something from transmitted stipends, is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault, without excluding, if the matter requires it, suspension, deprivation of a benefice or ecclesiastical office, or, if there is question of laymen, excommunication.³⁹⁹ The excommunications latae sententiae which formerly existed in this matter have been suppressed.

³⁹⁷ Decree Ut debita, n. 10.

³⁹⁸ Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

³⁹⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2324.

274. e) It is altogether prohibited to retain any part of a manual stipend and to hand over to another priest the Mass to be said with a diminished stipend.

Wherefore Alexander VII condemned proposition 9: "After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are handed over can satisfy through another by giving him a lesser stipend and retaining for himself another part of the stipend."⁴⁰⁰ The Holy See sometimes permits a small part of the stipend to be retained to be expended for pious causes.⁴⁰¹ It must be noted, however, that all indults granted in this matter before the year 1904 have been revoked.⁴⁰² Certain authors⁴⁰³ think that a priest who retains part of a manual stipend does indeed sin gravely, but probably does not injure justice and accordingly is not bound to restitution, provided, however, that he takes care that the determinate number of Masses be celebrated. This opinion seems to us improbable. For if it were true, then a priest who retains, for example, one thousand francs from one thousand rather ample stipends, but has those Masses discharged elsewhere, would be bound to nothing from justice. This seems very unfitting. The reason for the injured justice seems to be this: A stipend is not the price of a Mass, but is an offering permitted by the Church and given by the offerer to the one who is to say the Mass. Although, therefore, the first priest receiving the stipends immediately becomes their owner, nevertheless he is not the absolute owner, but only when he fulfills the precepts issued by the Church concerning this matter. But if he gravely violates these precepts, he loses ownership and is bound to restitution. Moreover, the Church has gravely commanded that part of a manual stipend not be unduly retained. Authors most commonly defend the obligation of restitution in this case,⁴⁰⁴ at least those who wrote after the proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

⁴⁰⁰ Denz., n. 1109.

⁴⁰¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905, response to the Society of the Most Holy Savior.

⁴⁰² Decree Ut debita, n. 9.

⁴⁰³ For example, Noldin, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 192; Génicot, Theol. mor. II, n. 231; D'Annibale, Summula Theol. mor. III, 190, n. 17; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. IV, n. 1017.

⁴⁰⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 322; Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, n. 299.

275. It is lawful to retain part of the stipend in the following cases:

a) By virtue of a pontifical indult granted after the year 1904.⁴⁰⁵

b) If the donor consents.⁴⁰⁶

This is evident. Not only explicit consent, but also implicit consent sometimes suffices. Thus, if because of friendship, gratitude, etc., the donor gave, in view of the person of the recipient, a notably larger stipend than is customarily given, he is considered implicitly to consent that the recipient retain the excess part. Therefore, for example, if in such a place the amount of the ordinary stipend is two francs and the donor gave twenty francs, a priest handing this Mass over to another priest is not bound to give twenty francs, but two francs. If, however, the excess is moderate, the donor's implicit consent is not established and must not be presumed.

c) If there is question of stipends which are not strictly manual, but quasi-manual.

For then it suffices to hand over a stipend according to the diocesan rate of the place in which the Mass is celebrated,⁴⁰⁷ provided that these Masses are annexed to some benefice or, from the intention of the founder, constitute part of the fitting support of the pastor. "Considering that the alms for the Masses of certain legacies in part take the place of the 'parochial congrua,' the Most Eminent Fathers have judged it lawful for a pastor, if he cannot satisfy them personally, to commit these Masses to another priest, with the ordinary alms of the place assigned, whether for read or sung Masses.... In legacies of Masses founded in some church, that portion of the revenues which at the establishment of the foundation or in another legitimate manner was assigned to the ministers and those serving the church, independently of the special work to be performed for the fulfillment of the legacy, can be retained in their favor."⁴⁰⁸ Hence, for example, a pastor who commits to a vicar a funeral or nuptial Mass to be sung is not strictly bound to give him more than the customary stipend which is given for a Mass sung at such an hour, although the pastor himself received a much larger stipend. For these funeral and nuptial Masses are numbered among the stole fees which belong to the pastor. Nevertheless, ordinarily it seems very equitable that the vicar who performed the entire burden also receive some part of these stole fees.

d) If the recipient freely consents.

For Benedict XIV⁴⁰⁹ declares: "A priest who has accepted a stipend of greater value for the celebration of a Mass cannot give a stipend of lesser value to another priest, even if he had indicated to the same celebrating and consenting priest that he had accepted an alms of greater value." Hence it does not suffice that the priest celebrating the Mass consent in any manner whatsoever to the diminution of the stipend offered, because he can consent because of moral necessity; rather, it is required that he consent altogether freely and expressly.

e) If some church is poor and does not have sufficient revenues.

For then it can subtract from the stipends offered by it to priests celebrating in this church such a part as suffices for the necessary expenses of each Mass, for example, for wine, candles, the use of vestments, etc. Thus Innocent XII.⁴¹⁰

In the Tarragona case, the Sacred Congregation of the Council granted for a five-year period that he who by office distributes Masses in that diocese retain three percent for himself as an honorarium.

⁴⁰⁵ Cf. the preceding number above.

⁴⁰⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 840, § 1.

⁴⁰⁷ Ibid., § 2.

⁴⁰⁸ Thus it is contained in the decree Ut debita, n. 15. Cf., however, the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Breda, February 27, 1905.

⁴⁰⁹ Constitution Quanta cura, June 30, 1741.

⁴¹⁰ Constitution Nuper, December 23, 1697.

276. 7. The register and book of Masses. Rectors of churches and of other pious places, whether secular or religious, in which alms for Masses are customarily received, are to have a special book in which they accurately note the number, intention, alms, and celebration of the Masses received. The Ordinaries, whether bishops or religious superiors, are bound at least every year to inspect books of this kind personally or through others.

Likewise, local Ordinaries and religious superiors who commit Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or to others are quickly to enter in order in a book the Masses which they have received with their alms, and are to take care to the extent of their powers that they be celebrated as soon as possible.

Every private priest also is to have a special book in which he records all Masses to be discharged and discharged, with the stipend accepted.⁴¹¹

The register of founded Masses must be preserved in a safe place.^411a

⁴¹¹ Code of Canon Law, cc. 843 and 844.

^411a Ibid., c. 1549, § 1.

277. Scholion 1. On the exchange of Masses. A priest is probably immune from every sin who, after accepting a more ample stipend for celebrating Mass on a determinate day, when on that day he cannot discharge this Mass, sometimes asks another priest to celebrate for him, while at the same time promising that on another day he will celebrate according to the intention of that priest. Thus rightly hold Billuart,⁴¹² Génicot,⁴¹³ Vermeersch,⁴¹⁴ and others. Wherefore there is no appearance of shameful gain on account of which St. Alphonsus⁴¹⁵ condemns this manner of acting as a venial sin. For here there is not an exchange of stipends but of Masses, and it is the same as if someone were to say to another: I will say Mass for you tomorrow if you say Mass for me today.

⁴¹² De euchar., diss. 8, a. 6.

⁴¹³ Theol. mor. II, n. 231, 9th ed.

⁴¹⁴ Theol. mor. III, n. 300.

⁴¹⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 322, dub. 4.

278. Scholion 2. On the Mass of a newly ordained priest. Newly ordained priests celebrating with the bishop can and must apply that Mass, but whether they can accept a stipend for it without the express consent of the offerer is not so well established. Since custom is contrary, the negative opinion is better in practice, although the affirmative opinion is theoretically more true. On the other hand, it is lawful to accept a stipend for the three Masses which are imposed upon newly ordained priests by the bishop.⁴¹⁶

⁴¹⁶ Cf. Benedict XIV, De sacrif. Miss. l. 3, c. 16, n. 10; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 829.