Chapter II. On the Application of the Sacrifice of the Mass

I say. A special application by the priest is not necessary in order that the most special fruit may come to him, and that part of the general fruit may be perceived by the faithful. Nevertheless, an application or intention is required by which the priest wills that the special or ministerial fruit should come to some person. The reason of the first is that that application is always implicitly contained in the general intention of celebrating according to the mind of the Church. But the reason of the second is that the priest is the only person who acts in the name of Christ as minister, and therefore he alone can dispose of such fruit, and consequently without his application there is no reason why fruit of this kind should be given to one rather than to another. But if in truth no special application is made, this fruit then goes to the general treasury of the Church, and therefore becomes less useful. - Cf. Billuart, dissertation 8, art. 4.

Question 1. Must the application of the fruit of the Mass be actual?

Resp. Negatively; rather, it suffices that it be habitual, namely that once made it is not retracted. The reason is that this application is made by way of donation, and therefore through the intention once had the priest has already given the fruit of his sacrifice, and therefore it is owed to him to whom he has given it, and when Mass is celebrated, it comes to the same person unless the donation is revoked. Nevertheless, it is expedient to make the application of the Mass before it is begun. But if the priest has not done this either before the consecration, or at least in the consecration of the second species, he cannot afterward specially apply the sacrifice to anyone. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 335.

Question 2. If a priest, forgetful of a prior intention, elicits a new one while celebrating, which must be judged valid?

Resp. In general it cannot be defined, but one must inspect what intention was predominant in the mind of the priest. Besides, in practice it matters little; for since either one is certainly valid, it will suffice another time to apply the Sacrifice to him to whom it was not applied.

Question 3. Must the intention of the celebrant be explicitly determined?

Resp. Negatively, for it suffices that it be determined implicitly. Thus the application is valid if you say: I offer this sacrifice for him who gave the stipend - for whom the superior wills the Sacrifice to be made - for whom the foundation requires it - for the greatest sinner or the soul afflicted by the graver temptation - for the purging soul needing greater help or more pleasing to God - for all the souls of Purgatory - for him to whom I am bound to apply it - for the person or intention written or determined in mind at the beginning of the week, etc. On the contrary, this application is not valid: I offer that God may apply this Sacrifice, because no determination would be present.

Question 4. If a priest has accepted stipends from 10 persons, does he satisfy by celebrating with an altogether confused and indeterminate intention?

Resp. Negatively, because an intention determined at least implicitly to a certain person is required; otherwise there is no reason why the Mass would be applied to one rather than to another, and thus it would be applied to no one. - Nevertheless, if he intended to apply each Mass to those ten persons, applying to each one a tenth part of each Mass, he would satisfy the obligation; because the fruit of the sacrifice is divisible, and there is attributed to each one what is owed to him; for each one, perceiving in each of ten Masses a tenth part of the fruit, when the tenth Sacrifice has been made, has already obtained the whole fruit owed to him. But a fortiori this is lawful according to the opinion of those who deny that the fruit of the Mass is perceived according to some limited measure established by Christ Himself. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 335. - Ballerini, note (b), p. 245.

Question 5. How must the application be determined when stipends are given by many unknown persons?

Resp. The intention must be made for those who gave the earlier stipends. This easily succeeds when the same priest will satisfy all obligations; nor does it stand in the way that he perhaps distributes part of the Masses to be celebrated to other priests, because he can distribute them in the same order in which he received them, and thus the application seems sufficiently determined. A greater difficulty seems present if a sacristan or another has collected many stipends from diverse persons and distributes the confused money to several priests. For how then will the application of the Mass have to be made? I answer: Nothing else must be done, nor can anything else morally be done, than that the application be made according to the order of time in which the stipends were given by the faithful, according to the maxim which is sometimes used in a matter of justice: He who is prior in time is stronger in right. Indeed, it is not even necessary that the priest explicitly attend to this; since he is judged to wish to act thus, when natural equity demands it. In general, when priests receive Masses to be celebrated from the Ordinary, it suffices that they "celebrate according to the mind of the Ordinary, who nevertheless must form the intention for each one offering according to the rules handed down by approved authors of moral theology. Yet it is better if the prescribed intentions are disclosed to the priests." S. C. Conc. 27 Feb. 1905.

Question 6. Are you held to a new application if you celebrated for a living person whom you thought dead, if you had owed to celebrate only for him now dead?

Resp. Negatively, probably, both because he who gave the stipend is not reasonably supposed to wish to urge his right in such a way, and because the Mass already said was not useless to him while still living.

Question 7. What must be said about the divisibility of the fruits?

Resp. It often happens from the very nature of the thing that the fruits of the sacrifice are separated, that is, that one fruit comes to someone without another: for capacity is not found in the subject. Thus, when you offer sacrifice for a sinner who is not in the state of grace, the sacrifice benefits him, say, as to impetratory force but not as to satisfaction, because punishment owed for sins is not remitted unless the sins have first been dismissed. In a similar way, when you offer sacrifice in memory of the citizens of heaven, you obtain that their cult may be increased, etc., but they themselves are incapable of satisfaction. This separation can also be made by the will of the priest: he can apply this fruit, say the satisfactory fruit, to one, and the impetratory fruit to another. - Cf. Dicastillo, disp. 3, de sacrif., n. 136. - Lugo, d. 19, n. 122, and others from Gobat, tract. III, sec. II, n. 140, who hands down these rules for practice: Rule I. As often as there does not fall upon you an obligation of offering your Sacrifice for some certain intention, so often you can separate all the fruits by reserving one or two for yourself, dividing the rest among two, three, four, etc. The reason is that whatever is not expressly found prohibited is understood to be conceded. Rule II. When you have accepted a stipend for making the Sacrifice for some certain intention, you illicitly divide the fruits, etc.

Certainly it seems to us that here also injustice can easily intervene, namely if by the division the intention of the one giving the stipend would be frustrated. A Mass in these circumstances of a conferred stipend must always be said in such a way that the right of the giver remains unharmed. The same must be said when you say Mass from a stipend for the dead; you cannot divide the satisfactory fruit from the impetratory fruit. Rule III. When from obedience alone you are held to make the Sacrifice ... you can apply to another the fruits which do not tend directly to the prescribed end. ... The obligation of law and precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law and precept. Finally, lastly, a liberal permission is to be interpreted so that it is as little burdensome as possible to the one promising ... especially when the promissory words indicate limitation. - Gobat, ibid.

Question 8. What is a second intention in Mass?

Resp. "From what has been said," says Lugo (concerning whether the Sacrifice of the Mass has infinite value), "there is inferred first what the second intention in Mass means, which is accustomed to be applied for others; for in truth to apply a second intention for someone is to apply conditionally, if he to whom the first is applied does not need it; or even to extend the impetration to that; which, as we have said, can be extended to several; or finally also to apply satisfaction primarily in the case in which the contrary opinion is true, according to which the priest can extend his application to many and prudently does so by extending it: let it be worth as much as it can be worth." Cf. Lugo, disp. 19, n. 257. A second intention, when Mass is said for a stipend, must be formed "with the right of the giver preserved." It is altogether to be advised, lest the fruit remain in the treasury of the Church, that as often as we celebrate Mass for someone, we always at the same time have another second intention of applying it to another, either in whole or in part conditioned, if he to whom the first intention is given is not capable of its fruit or does not need it. - Cf. Coninck in 3 part, q. 83, nn. 165-166.