Mass once a day; bination

By the common law of the Church Mass may only be said once in the day except on Christmas Day and on the day of the Commemoration of the Holy Souls (November 2), when a priest may say three Masses. Mass may be said on every day in the year, but on the three last days in Holy Week Low Mass is forbidden. On those days in cathedral, collegiate, and parish churches, High Mass should be sung as far as possible. In parish churches where High Mass cannot be sung, but three or four clerics can be got to serve, the ceremonies should be carried out according to the memorial of rites drawn up by command of Benedict XIII. In parish churches where not even this can be done, the bishop may give leave for a Low Mass on Holy Thursday, and he may also, for the convenience of the sick, allow a Low Mass to be said in other churches before the High Mass.

Mass may be said twice by a priest on the same day if the necessity of the people requires it. The bishop is the judge as to when it is necessary, as it will be if the people cannot all get to one Mass on account of the distance at which they live from the church, or because the church is too small to contain them all at once. Moreover, in missionary countries it is quite common for priests to have a special faculty of celebrating twice in the day on Sundays and holy days of obligation. The only cause recognized for the lawful use of this faculty is the necessity of the people, of which again the bishop is the judge, and it is expressly forbidden to take a stipend for the second Mass. The use of the faculty is not lawful when another priest can be got to say the Mass required by the necessity of the people.

III. Lawfulness. According to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, it is lawful for any priest celebrating and applying Mass to receive an alms or stipend (canon 824, § 1). The reason is that the stipend is not given and accepted after the manner of a price, that is, as a thing with which the Mass is exchanged - which would be simoniacal - but as a thing which is owed to the priest insofar as it is just that one who must serve the utility of others be supported by those others, according to these words of Sacred Scripture: "The laborer is worthy of his food";¹ "Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?"² (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 316, 320, doubt 4).

Thus it is lawful, even for a wealthy priest, to accept a stipend for a Mass. Nevertheless it would be little praiseworthy to celebrate principally on account of the stipend. Indeed, St. Alphonsus judges that one who acts thus is not easily excused from venial sin, "since it is a certain disorder to direct spiritual things to temporal things" (VI, 317; III, 55, question 6).

Note 1. It is also lawful, as Benedict XIV teaches,³ for priests celebrating with the bishop, for example in the Mass of ordination, to accept a stipend. Likewise it is permitted for newly ordained priests to receive an alms for the three Masses imposed upon them by the bishop (St. Alphonsus, VI, 829).

Note 2. One who celebrates several times in a day, if on one occasion he applies from a title of justice, cannot, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, receive an alms for another Mass, apart from some remuneration from an extrinsic title (canon 824, § 2). It is said:

1. From a title of justice, for example because of a stipend received, or if a pastor from office applies for the people; in this case, therefore, the pastor cannot receive a stipend for either Mass. For the rest, it is the same whether the Mass which has a stipend annexed is said in the first place or in the second place.

2. He cannot receive an alms for another Mass. Nevertheless nothing prevents him - provided that he does not receive an alms - from saying another Mass from a title of fidelity or charity; or even of justice, provided that the title of justice is not founded in stipend or in office.⁴

3. From an extrinsic title, for example of chant, hour, or place.⁵

Note 3. From canon 825 it is never lawful:

1. To apply a Mass to the intention of one who is going to request the application with an alms offered, but has not yet requested it, and to retain the alms afterward given for the Mass previously applied (n. 1; cf. n. 208).

2. To receive an alms for a Mass which is owed and applied by another title (n. 2). By another title, whether of justice, fidelity, obedience, etc. The reasons are: both because in the case the one who gave the stipend is more probably deprived of some fruit to which he has a right (n. 207); and because the one giving the stipend, according to received usage, judges that the Mass is applied for himself alone, while the priest accepting the stipend tacitly binds himself to that.

3. To accept a double alms for the application of the same Mass (n. 3; cf. n. 207).

4. To receive one alms for the celebration alone and another for the application, unless it is certain that one offering was made for celebration without application.

¹ Matthew 10:10.

² 1 Corinthians 9:7.

³ De sacrificio Missae, book III, chapter 11.

⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 September 1878 (Collectio, n. 1500).

⁵ By these words the prohibition of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (15 October 1915), which existed on 2 November, was removed (Pontifical Commission, 13 December 1923, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1924, p. 116). Moreover, Pius IX, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 15 October 1863, granted to Ordinaries of missions the faculty of allowing, when a just and grave cause intervenes, that priests subject to them may receive a stipend even for a second Mass to be celebrated on the same day. Even outside mission territory such indults are sometimes granted, but only conditionally, namely under the condition that the Masses be applied according to the mind of the bishop, who will receive the alms so that he may expend them for pious causes. If these pious causes are not further indicated, it is also lawful, indeed preferable, that the bishop expend them "in favor of poor priests, not excluding those who repeat the Sacred rite, insofar as they need assistance" (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 August 1909, Acta Apostolicae Sedis I, pp. 767-771; cf. especially the report of the consultor prefixed to this decision). In the case, however, the whole alms is to be sent to the bishop (Sacred Congregation of the Council, 27 February 1905; N. K. St., p. 134). Thus Aertnys-Damen, vol. II, n. 202.

I. Except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord and on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, on which there is the faculty of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice three times, it is not lawful for a priest to celebrate several Masses in a day, unless by apostolic indult or by power granted by the local Ordinary (canon 806, § 1). Note, however:

1. As regards the day of the Nativity of the Lord: a) One who says only one Mass should take that Mass which corresponds to the hour of celebration, that is, at night the first, at dawn the second, during the day the third.¹ One who - as is lawful² - celebrates only two Masses, if he separates them and does not say both during the day, should proceed in such a way that the Masses correspond to the hour of celebration; if he does not separate them and reads both at night, he should take the first and the other; if at dawn or during the day, he should celebrate the other and the third.

b) One who by apostolic indult can celebrate daily a votive Mass or a Mass of the dead can, even on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, say the same Mass three times,³ that is, either the votive Mass, or, as it seems, one of the three Masses of the Nativity.⁴

2. As regards the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed:

a) One who says three Masses must apply one gratuitously for all the faithful departed, another gratuitously according to the intention of the Supreme Pontiff; he can celebrate the third for a stipend. It is also illicit, with the Masses for the departed and according to the intention of the Supreme Pontiff transferred to another day, to say three Masses for a stipend on the day of the Commemoration. But it does not matter which of the three Masses is celebrated for the departed, according to the intention of the Supreme Pontiff, or for a stipend.⁵

b) One who reads only one Mass should take the first Mass of the day, and he can apply it for a stipend. "Let him use the same Mass, that is, the first Mass, who is going to celebrate Mass with chant, with the power granted him of anticipating the second and third."⁶ One who celebrates only two Masses should take the first two Masses of the day; he can apply one for a stipend, and is bound to say one of the two for the departed.⁷

c) One who by apostolic indult can daily celebrate a votive Mass or a Mass of the dead can, even on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, say the same Mass three times.⁸

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 June 1875, n. 3354; 13 February 1892, n. 3767, ad 21.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 June 1875, n. 3355.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 January 1920, n. 4356.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 October 1915, ad 1, 2, and 3.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, n. 4331.

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 February 1917, n. 4342.

⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 29 January 1920, n. 4356.

⁸ Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 28 September 1837.

II. The Ordinary cannot impart the faculty of celebrating several times in a day unless, in his prudent judgment, because of a scarcity of priests, a notable part of the faithful cannot assist at Mass on a feast day of precept; nor is it in his power to permit more than two Masses to the same priest (canon 806, § 2). Thus:

1. The power of the Ordinary regards only feast days of precept, that is, days on which the faithful are in fact bound to hear Mass; therefore suppressed feast days are excluded.¹

2. The power of the Ordinary regards circumstances in which, if bination is excluded, a notable part of the faithful could not hear the sacred rite. The case is present: 1. if a pastor has two parishes so distant from one another that the people of both cannot conveniently come together in the same church, and there is no priest who may celebrate in the other parish; 2. if a pastor has two groups of people in the same parish distant in the aforesaid way, and there is no priest who may celebrate the other Mass; 3. if a notable part of the parishioners - for example twenty persons² - cannot come together to hear one and the same Mass, whether because of domestic circumstances or because of the narrowness of the church, and no other priest is present who may say the other Mass. But the Ordinary cannot grant bination in favor of those who wish to satisfy the precept in their own private oratories;³ nor does mere custom suffice,⁴ unless it is centenary and the Ordinary judges that it cannot prudently be removed (canon 5). Moreover, since the faculty of binating has been granted in order that necessity may be met, it cannot be exercised if by chance another priest arrives who can and wishes to say the other Mass. For the rest, note:

a) A faculty granted that in a determinate church Mass may be celebrated twice by the same priest is local, so that it is communicated to another who takes his place. Otherwise one must speak of a faculty granted to someone that he may use it, because of an occurring case, now here, now there; this faculty is personal and cannot be communicated to another, unless the faculty of subdelegating has been added.

b) In a case of sudden necessity, for example if another priest suddenly falls ill and no other can be summoned, the license of the bishop can be presumed,⁵ unless the statutes require that the judgment of the vicar forane intervene.

¹ Cf. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, where it is said that the concession is to be interpreted rather benignly.

² Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 24 May 1870, n. 6 (Collectio, n. 792).

³ Benedict XIV, Constitution Declarasti nobis.

⁴ Cf. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 24 May 1870, nn. 13-17 (Collectio, n. 792).

⁵ Cf. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 24 May 1870, nn. 13-17 (Collectio, n. 792).

III. Finally, it is sufficiently probable that it is lawful to binate if otherwise a dying person would be deprived of Viaticum.

IV. Whenever someone celebrates several times in a day, if he applies one Mass from a title of justice, the priest, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, cannot receive an alms for another Mass, apart from some remuneration from an extrinsic title (canon 824, § 2); see these things explained in n. 217.

"1. The faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day, with which the Holy See is accustomed to distinguish the Ordinaries of Missions, so that they themselves may communicate it to their Missionaries, has raised not a few doubts, which have been proposed to this Sacred Congregation by the same. The reason of doubts of this kind is sought from the very strictness of the clauses which, by order of Alexander VII, were added to the article of the Formulas which treats of this faculty. Wherefore it has seemed opportune, in this present Instruction, to collect the more common rules and principles which are to be had before the eyes in the use of the remembered faculty.

2. No one is ignorant that, from the general rule according to the present discipline of the Church, it is lawful for Priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in the day. Thus Innocent III established: 'We respond that, except on the day of the Lord's Nativity, unless a cause of necessity should persuade, it suffices for a Priest to celebrate only one Mass in a day.' Chap. Consuluisti, On the Celebration of Masses.

3. Therefore in a case of necessity, repetition of Mass on the same day is permitted to Priests. Yet this must be understood, as is discerned from the very words of the Formulas, of permission to celebrate only two Masses, although grave causes should concur which would persuade celebrating a greater number. Once the Prefect of the Mission of the Capuchins of Tunis asked whether, on one and the same day, if necessity urged, he could celebrate more than two Masses, for this reason, that all his Missionaries had been thrown into prisons. And the general Sacred Congregation placed over the Propagation of the Faith responded on 7 August 1684: that he cannot by force of the faculties celebrate beyond two Masses. This had already been answered previously in the general Congregation held before the Most Holy Lord on 17 February 1648; for when an abuse had been set forth which had prevailed among Priests detained in captivity in Algeria, of celebrating three Masses, "the Most Holy Lord... ordered through the said Prefect (of Algeria) that it be enjoined in the name of His Holiness upon the Priests... that since the Apostolic See in the faculties of Missionaries has conceded the power or license of celebrating twice in a day where necessity has required this, 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 only title from which the faculty is made for Priests of saying two Masses. First however it is expedient to observe with Verricelli that "this necessity is not to be taken from the side of the scarcity of Priests, but from the side of the spiritual necessity of the people and the rarity of Priests." On Apostolic Missions, Tit. IV, q. 98, D. 18, n. 201. With this principle posited, it is easy to draw out certain negative rules concerning the use of the faculty of which there is question.

5. And first indeed it is evident that he would not think rightly who would say that Mass can be repeated on suppressed feast days, on which the people are not bound to hear Mass, as the Sacred Congregation warned in the year 1837 in these words: "The matter having been maturely weighed, from the words of the formula itself it appeared sufficiently clearly that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated festivities. For since in the remembered formula it is declared that the faculty is valid if necessity urges, it follows that, from this title alone that those days were once festive, Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same Priest."

6. Secondly. Likewise repetition of Mass is interdicted for the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private chapels. In the year 1842 the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg had narrated the custom that had grown up in his Vicariate of permitting the repetition of Mass in the camps of magnates; but since he did not think that in these circumstances there was that necessity which is required by the Formulas, he sought, both by reason of custom and by reason of the moral utility which came thence, that authority be made to him for permitting it. But the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition judged that, according to the things set forth, it was not expedient. And when the Apostolic Vicar had added that some Priests, by a faculty previously had from his Predecessor, were pursuing the repetition of Mass, the Supreme Sacred Congregation decreed that the faculty was to be revoked, insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg judged that this could prudently be done.

7. Thirdly. From Resolutions of this kind it is inferred that custom is not a sufficient title that the same Priest can offer the Holy Sacrifice twice on one and the same day. This also agrees with what Benedict XIV taught in Const. Declarasti Nobis, given on 16 March 1746 to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon. "Only we inquire," says the Pontiff, "whether that custom has acquired for itself the character of prescription or presumption, and we judge each to be false and foreign." And as regards prescription, he says: "For if according to civil laws holy things cannot be prescribed, it is absurd from every side to assert that something has been obtained or required by prescription which is adverse to the inviolable sanctions of the universal Church, which the Council of Trent commanded all Priests to observe in the celebration of Masses." But concerning presumption he adds: "But, the other things passed over, we submit that this could be understood of those privileges which could have been granted by the Apostolic See, if someone had asked for them, but not of those things which, when they are asked for, are by custom altogether denied custom, lest presumption have more strength and weight than truth." Hence it is that, when the Sacred Congregation has known that in some place the custom of repeating Mass without necessity had grown up, it did not omit to reprove a custom of this kind as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of Bishops for eliminating it.

8. Fourthly. Nor even the poverty of Presbyters is able to prove the repetition of Mass, as has been indicated from Verricelli, loc. cit. A certain Archbishop of Ireland in the year 1688 asked: "Whether from the sole cause of poverty Regulars can celebrate two Masses on feast days in private houses, although all parishes and convents have their own churches and chapels." The Response of the Sacred Congregation was negative: and when it had been reported in particular Congregations of Propaganda Fide held both on 7 March 1743 and on 28 July 1750 that an abuse of this kind still flourished in Ireland, because many Priests were using the faculty of repeating Mass for no other cause except that they might receive richer alms, and thence sustain themselves more conveniently, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: "Let Priests be gravely warned not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in a day so that they may have a more ample and richer stipend." And by Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolicum Ministerium, 30 May 1753, section 11, it is called an intolerable abuse that the faculty is made for some Priest of repeating Mass to this end, that by a double alms he might sustain himself more decently. Only, that in some way it might consult for the poor Religious of that Kingdom, who had complained concerning a similar prohibition made by the provincial Synod of Tuam in the year 1817 because of the damage thence arising, the alms being taken away from them which they were accustomed to receive on the occasion of Mass at the church doors, since they themselves lived from the offerings of the faithful, the Sacred Congregation willed that Bishops be warned that "in imparting by Apostolic authority to Priests the license of celebrating two Masses on feast days of precept because of causes of necessity approved by Apostolic Constitutions, they have account of Regular Priests, and especially of those who dwell in poor monasteries." For the rest, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that "from general practice it is not conceded to Presbyters to receive an alms for the second Mass, even if the matter concerns those who, furnished with a parochial duty, cannot obtain a stipend for the first Mass because they are bound to apply it for the people," as was notified by circular letters of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide on 15 October 1863 to Ordinaries of Missions, any pretext whatever for the abuse of repeating Mass in view of a stipend has already been removed. Nevertheless, account having been had of the circumstances of certain particular Missions, the Most Holy Father deigned to make authority, as is established from the said circular Letters, for their Ordinaries of permitting "that, a just and grave cause intervening, Priests subject to them can and may receive a stipend even for a second Mass to be celebrated on the same day."

9. Fifthly. Finally it is necessary to note that repetition of Mass is interdicted to a Priest whenever another Priest can be had who can satisfy the necessity of the people, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the cited Constitution Declarasti Nobis. And hence it is that, before repetition of Mass is admitted, it must be seen whether some remedy from those constituted by law is at hand for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and first the Parish Priest himself is bound to supply a stipend to another Priest; but his inability being posited, the people are bound; and finally, if neither could the people be compelled to this on account of poverty, the Ordinary would be bound to supply. Benedict XIV, loc. cit.; Vote of Cardinal Zelada, Thesaur. Resolutionum, T. 37, in the cause of Derthusen, 26 Aug. 1768.

10. Thus far concerning cases in which repetition of Mass is prohibited. As regards the cases in which the necessity required for this concurs, these are found set forth in Const. Declarasti Nobis. In this Constitution there is first considered, according to the unanimous consent of Theologians, that repetition of Mass is permitted to the Priest "who obtains two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present for the Parish Priest celebrating on feast days because of the very great distance of places." And this is the first and more common case; the other, which is there recounted, is "when there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated, and to which the whole people together cannot come."

11. In these cases Mass can be repeated even by those who are not endowed with the faculty through the Formulas which are customarily conceded through the Sacred Congregation placed over the Propagation of the Faith, since common law itself concedes this, always nevertheless dependently on the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to pass sentence both concerning true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying canonical remedies (section 9). In reality, these means having been indicated, Benedict XIV adds: "The things said thus far rest also on general canonical sanctions." Indeed, the opinion of Theologians is concordant, as Benedict XIV himself also observes, that in the case of one Parish Priest with two parishes, "the Parish Priest not only can, but plainly is bound to celebrate Mass twice on the same day." De Syn. Dioec., bk. 6, ch. 8, n. 2. From these things it easily follows that the article of the Formulas, since it is facultative, is extended also to other cases of necessity not considered in common law; for otherwise that article would become useless, at least for those places in which parishes are canonically erected, with common law itself disposing for these parishes. This agrees with what Benedict XIV teaches in the work De Sacros. Missae Sacrificio, bk. 3, ch. 5, n. 4, in which, after he had asserted that "the case which truly occurs is that when a Parish Priest has two parishes," etc., he proceeds in these words: "Nor nevertheless do we will anything prejudged concerning other cases which occur in Missions, for which provision has been made by conceding to Missionaries the faculty of celebrating Mass several times on the same day; likewise concerning other cases in which either because of the distance of places, or because of the fewness of Priests, or the persecution of infidels, lest the faithful lack Mass, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by Priests." And concerning causes of this kind indeed, which have place in Missions, for which the faculty is given to Superiors of Missions, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide was speaking in the year 1832, when it gave an opportune warning to a certain Philippopolitan Missionary, who was not repeating Masses although he presided over various Christian communities. Namely, Mass repetition having been enjoined upon him, even from the mandate of the general Congregation, it was added: "But if you ask why those clauses of rigor are added to the faculty of repeating Mass in the formula of the Indult, you will find the response in the formula itself; for you will observe that the Indult is not restricted to the needs of the people on feast days; but since it is contained in general terms, it also comprehends other cases concerning which there is question, as would be the necessity of administering Viaticum to the sick in each parish, and in other cases of this kind the prescribed cautions ought to have place."

12. And in cases of this kind, namely less frequent ones, in the use of this faculty Bishops and Missionaries have repeatedly seemed to hesitate, doubting especially concerning the sufficiency of causes which would be required according to the clauses added to the faculty. But truly the cases which can happen in Missions in this matter are so many and so various that they can hardly be foreseen easily, and much less reduced to determined rules; for judgment concerning them can vary according to the diverse concurrent circumstances of places, times, and persons. This is the reason why the resolution of particular doubts which have been proposed concerning this matter has for the most part been remitted to the prudent judgment of the Superior of the Mission.

13. And first indeed a rule was often requested concerning the number of the faithful which would be enough that Mass could be repeated. In the Constitution Apostolicum Ministerium issued for England, it is said that a faculty of this kind can be employed "when the number of those who on feast days are bound to assist at Sacred things exhibits such necessity that unless power of celebrating two Masses on the same day is conceded to some Priest, many would not satisfy the command of the Church." Yet a general norm of this kind does not remove every doubt concerning the number necessary for repetition. The same can be said concerning a certain negative response of the Holy Inquisition given in the year 1688 to Capuchin Missionaries in Greece. These had asked: "Whether a Missionary Priest, dwelling alone in a place, could celebrate two Masses on Sundays and feast days for fifteen or twenty persons who, legitimately impeded, were not able to be present at the first Mass;" and the Supreme Holy Inquisition on 28 January of the same year decreed: it is not lawful. But if the number of twenty faithful is not judged enough for Mass to be repeated, it can further be asked what minimum number suffices.

14. But concerning a doubt of this kind, as concerning those things which regard distance, the Sacred Congregation has had it in custom that these things are to be resolved by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries of Missions on whom the faculty depends; for they themselves in the places in which they dwell can rightly estimate the circumstances concurring in individual cases. And indeed as far back as the year 1688, the Prefect of the Mission of Tunis in Mauritania generally asked that it be declared what number of faithful there ought to be who would be deprived of Mass, so that Mass could be repeated; and the General Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide on 16 November responded: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Prefect. Similarly the Bishop of St. Louis in the United States of America in the year 1828, having set forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their own conscience because of the clauses of the formulas, asked: "Whether whenever thirty or fifty faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice." But by order of Leo XII, by letters given on 13 March, it was rescripted: "You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind, and, without being moved by the rigor of the words, He (His Holiness) commits it to your conscience and prudence that you judge in which cases, with account had 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 you shall have judged these causes grave according to your conscience and prudence, His Holiness kindly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt."

15. A similar response also was given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who had proposed a doubt about distance thus: "In this region by ancient custom a license of binating is sometimes conceded because of moral necessity, although the nearer parish is not distant beyond the space of half a league; it is asked whether rightly?" The Sacred Congregation responded by letters of 31 July: It being premised that it is the duty of Bishops, according to their powers, to take care that there be no need to use this faculty for relieving 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 lacking, and all other circumstances maturely weighed, it must be defined by the prudent judgment of the Superior whether in that case there concur grave circumstances of things, which Doctors hand down as effecting a case of necessity (as the proposed one seems), in which there is place for dispensation from the universal precept concerning the repetition of the Sacrifice by the same Presbyter on the same day, and for the faculty of binating to be bestowed; which, from the words of the Apostolic Indult itself, it is especially clear that he ought to use altogether sparingly. And this instruction was sent in the same words to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, in whose name various doubts concerning repetition of Mass had been proposed; for it was rescripted to him on 28 September that, his questions having been considered, the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction should be given which... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg obtained under the day 31 July in the year 1851.

16. For the rest, among various responses which remit to the judgment of the Superior the measuring of the gravity of causes, some deserve particular mention; of this kind are those which, while they follow the customary rule of remitting to the Superior's judgment the estimation of causes, at the same time indicate in some manner the kind or degree of necessity which repetition of Mass demands, and repeatedly temper somewhat the fear and soften the excessive anxiety of mind which those clauses had created for Bishops and Missionaries, by which this faculty is restricted in the Formulas. One of responses of this kind was given in the year 1848 to a Bishop in the United States of America; for by letters given on 9 May it was rescripted thus: I come to your request concerning the mode of interpreting the necessity which is required for the lawful use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day.... Let Your Amplitude therefore know that necessity of this kind, concerning which the discourse is, is indeed true, but is understood as moral; not however absolute, concerning which therefore to judge in individual cases depends on prudent judgment, after the circumstances have been inspected.

Therefore you must beware in this matter of excessive anxiety in judging, lest the aforesaid faculty seem to have been conceded in vain or to have to be reduced to act in almost no case. More worthy of note is the declaration which was sent in the year 1828 to a certain Apostolic Prefect in the Antilles of America. For since he did not trust that he could tranquilly use the faculty concerning which there is question, because of the grave conditions by which it is constrained, he had implored a more ample faculty from the Apostolic See of making provision for Presbyters... that on Sundays and feasts of precept they can celebrate Mass twice, when necessity or the spiritual utility of the faithful demands it. A report of this matter having been made to the Supreme Pontiff on 13 April, response was made in this way: Such is the estimation of your virtue and prudence, that Our Most Holy Lord ordered that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind; and if you shall have judged it to be 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 by 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 causes; and in these circumstances, he kindly declared that you have the faculty, through the remembered Rescript, of making provision for Priests that they celebrate Mass twice.

17. The same rule, of committing to the judgment or charity of Superiors of Missions the application of general principles to practical cases, has also been observed when in the cases themselves, 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 the clauses of this faculty require; this indeed confirms that, in considering causes which may persuade the use of the faculty, great account must be had of all the conditions and state of the faithful. An argument of this matter is the response given by the S. C. in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the Tripolitan Mission. This man, uncertain because of the clauses, had asked "for what number of slaves or free persons he could precisely celebrate a second Mass, since sometimes the case was given that in the bath outside Tripoli not more than ten or fifteen slaves present at the Sacrifice were present... and whether, in the lack of Presbyters, for those alone a second Mass could be celebrated on feast days." Now indeed, although the Resolution given in the same year by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition for a similar case did not stand in the way, as was noted above in section 13, the Sacred Congregation placed over Propaganda Fide on 5 October responded: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Vice-Prefect. Nor should it be marvelous if this Sacred Congregation indulged a more benign interpretation; for the matter concerned slaves, who, because of their own condition, deserved peculiar indulgence, since the one consolation perhaps for them was the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Another argument of this kind of benignity, with account had of circumstances, was supplied by the Holy Inquisition in the year 1860; for although on 20 June it responded to the Apostolic Vicar of the same Kingdom adjacent to China that the desire of Neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist twice or three times in the year was not of itself a most urgent cause in the case concerning which there is question, that is, of repeating Mass according to the faculty; nevertheless it added: but, all the circumstances of places and persons having been weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Reverend Father Lord Vicar Apostolic. From these things it is drawn out that those causes which of themselves and therefore in many places are not grave can become grave in other places because of the circumstances which accompany the case.

18. These are the principles which have been had before the eyes as regards the faculty of repeating Mass, and which indeed will be able to render Ordinaries of Missions tranquil in the exercise of the same faculty. But although in this matter deference is customarily made to the wise judgment of Ordinaries of Missions, nevertheless from the things said thus far it appears with how much caution they ought to use it, since their conscience always remains burdened in the legitimate exercise of an extraordinary faculty of this kind. Nevertheless here there will help what the Sacred Congregation rescripted in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria: that the clauses employed in the Formulas are not to be understood in the extreme rigor, with the principle kept before the eyes that the Apostolic See concedes the said faculty for the spiritual good of the faithful, with the desire that all may easily fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.

19. It remains now to speak concerning the rite or the mode by which Mass can be repeated. It has always been prescribed by the Sacred Congregation to Missionaries, and by Benedict XIV himself, that he who repeats Mass ought not to take the customary ablutions of the chalice because of the fast, so that, "if in the first Mass after the reception of the Body and Blood he has accepted the pouring in, he ought not to celebrate a second Mass in the aforesaid cases" (Council of Nimes, 1284, at Benedict XIV, De SS. Sacrif. Miss., bk. 3, ch. 5, n. 4), that is, even in those cases in which the people would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrifice on feast days. But although in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Sacred Rites in the Ebusitan case on 16 September 1815 it had been prescribed that there be only one chalice which he ought to use who celebrates two Masses, nevertheless, since the execution of a Decree of this kind was subject to difficulties by no means light when celebration had to be done in two churches remote from each other, the same Sacred Order in general assemblies held on 12 September 1857 rescripted, for the moderation of the said Decree: that the use of two chalices can be permitted in the case. The Instruction which is added here, drawn up by order of the same Sacred Congregation of Sacred Rites, regards the mode of purifying the chalice which will have served for the first Mass.

From the buildings of the said Sacred Congregation, 24 May 1870." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 8 ff.; Vol. 6, p. 345 ff.; Lucidi, ch. 3, sec. 2, n. 378 ff.

"1. Whether a Parish Priest who rules two Parishes, and has the faculty of celebrating twice in the day, is bound to apply his Mass to each Parish, even if the revenues are slight? 2. Whether a Parish Priest who in the same Parish by faculty celebrates twice on the same day ought to apply each Mass gratis? 3. Whether vicars and other priests not having care of souls, if ever by faculty they celebrate twice in the day in a Parish, hospitals, etc., ought to apply gratis? He responded: to the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, negatively, the prohibition of receiving an alms for the second Mass remaining firm; to the 3rd, negatively, insofar as they do not have care of souls, the prohibition of receiving an alms for the second Mass always remaining firm." S. C. C. 25 Sept. 1858. Lucidi, Vol. 3, p. 380, 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 69 ff.

"That some remuneration can be permitted (in the case of repeated celebration of Mass) by the prudent judgment of the Bishop in view of labor and inconvenience, any alms whatever for the application of the Mass being excluded." S. C. C. 23 March 1861.

“1. The faculty of celebrating Mass twice in one day, with which the Holy See is accustomed to invest the Ordinaries of missions so that they in turn may communicate it to their missionaries, has raised not a few doubts which those same persons have proposed to this Sacred Congregation. The reason for doubts of this kind is drawn from the very rigor of the clauses which, by command of Alexander VII, were added to the article of the Formularies which treats of this faculty. Therefore, it has seemed opportune in this present Instruction to gather together the more common rules and principles which are to be kept before one’s eyes in the use of the aforesaid faculty.

“2. No one is ignorant that, according to the general rule under the prevailing discipline of the Church, priests are permitted to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in a day. Thus Innocent III established: ‘We respond that, except on the day of the Lord’s Nativity, unless a cause of necessity counsels otherwise, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one Mass once in a day.’ Chapter Consuluisti, On the Celebration of Masses.

“3. Therefore, in a case of necessity, a repetition of Mass on the same day is permitted to priests. Yet this must be understood, as is recognized from the very words of the Formularies, of permission to celebrate only two Masses, even if grave causes should concur which counsel celebrating a greater number. The Prefect of the Capuchin mission at Tunis once asked whether, if necessity urged, he could celebrate more than two Masses on one and the same day, because all his missionaries had been cast into prison. And the general Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 7 August 1684 that by virtue of the faculties he could not celebrate more than two Masses. This had already long before been answered in the general Congregation held before the Holy Father on 17 February 1648; for, when the abuse which had grown up among priests held in captivity in Algeria of celebrating three Masses was set forth, ‘His Holiness ... commanded that, through the said Prefect of Algeria, the priests be ordered in the name of His Holiness ... that, since the Apostolic See in the faculties of missionaries had granted the power or permission of celebrating twice in a day where necessity required it, they should henceforth not celebrate more than two Masses.’ The same thing was repeated to the Apostolic Prefect of Tunis in the years 1818 and 1820.

“4. Necessity, therefore, is the sole title by which the faculty of saying two Masses is given to priests. Nevertheless, it is first useful to observe with Verricelli that ‘this necessity is not to be drawn from the side of the scarcity of priests, but from the side of the spiritual necessity of the people and the charity of priests.’ On Apostolic Missions, title IV, question 98, doubt 18, no. 201. Once this principle is established, it is easy to derive certain negative rules concerning the use of the faculty in question.

“5. First, it is evident that one would not think rightly who said that Mass could be repeated on suppressed feast days on which the people are not bound to hear Mass, as the Sacred Congregation admonished in the year 1837 in these words: ‘The matter having been maturely considered, it became sufficiently clear from the words of the Formula itself that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated feasts. For since it is declared in the aforesaid Formula that the faculty has force if necessity urges, it follows that Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same priest on the sole title that those days were formerly feast days.’

“6. Second. The repetition of Mass is likewise forbidden for the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private chapels. In the year 1842 the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg related the custom which had grown up in his Vicariate of permitting a repetition of Mass in the castles of magnates; but since he did not think that, in those circumstances, there existed the necessity which the Formularies require, he asked, both by reason of the custom and by reason of the moral utility which arose from it, that authority to permit this be granted to him. But the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition judged, according to the matters set forth, that it was not expedient. And when the Apostolic Vicar added that some continued the repetition of Mass by a faculty previously received from his predecessor, the Supreme Sacred Congregation decreed that the faculty was to be revoked insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg prudently judged that this could be done.

“7. Third. From resolutions of this kind it is inferred that custom is not a sufficient title for the same priest to be able to offer the Holy Sacrifice twice on one and the same day. This also agrees with what Benedict XIV taught in the Constitution Declarasti nobis, given on 16 March 1746 to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon. ‘We ask only,’ says the Pontiff, ‘whether that custom has acquired for itself the character of prescription or presumption, and we judge each to be false and inapplicable.’ And as regards prescription, he says: ‘For if, according to the civil laws, sacred things cannot be acquired by prescription, it is absurd on every side to assert that something 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 commands all priests in the celebration of Masses.’ But concerning presumption he adds: ‘But, other things having been passed over, We add that these things can be understood of those privileges which could have been obtained from the Apostolic See if someone had petitioned for them, but not of those which, when they are petitioned for, are altogether accustomed to be denied, lest presumption have greater strength and weight than truth.’ Hence it is that, when the Sacred Congregation learned that in some place the custom of repeating Mass without necessity had grown up, it did not fail to reprove a custom of this kind as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of the Bishops to eliminate it.

“8. Fourth. Nor is the poverty of priests sufficient to prove the repetition of Mass, as has been indicated from Verricelli in the place cited. A certain Archbishop of Ireland asked in the year 1688: ‘Whether, from the cause of poverty alone, regulars may celebrate two Masses on feast days in private houses, although all parishes and convents have their own churches and chapels?’ The response of the Sacred Congregation was negative. When it was reported in particular Congregations for the Propagation of the Faith, held both on 7 March 1743 and on 28 July 1750, that an abuse of this kind still flourished in Ireland, because many priests used the faculty of repeating Mass for no other reason than that they might receive richer and more plentiful alms and thereby support themselves more comfortably, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: ‘Let the priests be gravely admonished not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in a day so that they may have a larger and richer stipend.’ And in the Constitution Apostolicum ministerium, 30 May 1753, § 11, Benedict XIV calls intolerable the abuse of granting to some priest the faculty of repeating Mass for the purpose that he might support himself more becomingly by a double alms. Only in order to provide in some manner for the poor religious of that kingdom, who had complained about a similar prohibition made by the Provincial Synod of Tuam in the year 1817 because of the loss arising therefrom—the alms which they had been accustomed to receive at the doors of the church on the occasion of Mass having been taken away from them, although they lived from the offerings of the faithful—the Sacred Congregation willed that the Bishops be admonished that, ‘in imparting, by Apostolic authority, permission to priests to celebrate two Masses on feast days of precept for causes of necessity approved by the Apostolic Constitutions, they should take account of regular priests, and especially of those who dwell in poor monasteries.’ Moreover, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that, ‘according to general practice, priests are not permitted to receive an alms for the second Mass, even if it concerns those who, endowed with the parochial office, therefore cannot obtain a stipend for the first Mass because they are bound to apply it for the people,’ as was notified to the Ordinaries of missions through the circular letters of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 15 October 1863, every pretext for the abuse of repeating Mass with a view to the stipend has now been removed. Nevertheless, account having been taken of the peculiar circumstances of certain missions, the Most Holy Father deigned to grant authority, as is evident from the said Circular Letters, to their Ordinaries to permit ‘that, when a just and grave cause intervenes, the priests subject to them may and can receive a stipend even for the second Mass to be celebrated on the same day.’

“9. Fifth. Finally, it is scarcely necessary to note that the repetition of Mass is forbidden to a priest whenever another priest can be had who is able to satisfy the necessity of the people, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the cited Constitution Declarasti nobis. Hence it is that, before a repetition of Mass is admitted, it must be seen whether some one of the remedies established by law is available for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and first of all the Pastor himself is bound to furnish a stipend to another priest; but, his inability being posited, the people are bound; and finally, if the people also could not be compelled to this because of poverty, the Ordinary would be bound to supply it. Benedict XIV, place cited; Opinion of Cardinal Zelada, Thesaurus of Resolutions, vol. 57, in the case of Tortosa, 26 August 1768.

“10. Thus far concerning the cases in which the repetition of Mass is prohibited. As regards the cases in which the necessity required for it concurs, these are found set forth in the Constitution Declarasti nobis. In this Constitution it is first considered, according to the unanimous consent of theologians, that repetition of Mass is permitted to a priest ‘who holds two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present with the Pastor celebrating on feast days because of the very great distance of the places.’ And this is the first and more common case. The other which is recounted there is ‘when there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated and to which the entire people cannot come together at the same time.’

“11. In these cases Mass can be repeated even by those who have not been granted the faculty through the Formularies customarily granted by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, since the common law itself grants it, yet always dependently upon the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to render judgment both concerning true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying the canonical remedies (§ 9). Indeed, after indicating remedies of this kind, Benedict XIV adds: ‘The things which have been said thus far also rest upon the general canonical sanctions.’ Indeed, the opinion of theologians is concordant, as Benedict XIV himself observes, that in the case of one Pastor with two parishes, ‘the Pastor not only can but is plainly bound to celebrate Mass twice on the same day.’ On the Diocesan Synod, book 6, chapter 8, no. 2. From these things it easily follows that the article of the Formularies, since it grants a faculty, extends also to other cases of necessity not considered in the common law; otherwise that article would become useless, at least for those places in which parishes have been canonically erected, since the common law itself provides for these parishes. This agrees with what Benedict XIV teaches in his work On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, book 3, chapter 5, no. 4, in which, after asserting that ‘the case which actually occurs is that in which a Pastor has two parishes,’ etc., he continues in these words: ‘Nevertheless, We do not will anything to be prejudged concerning the other cases which occur in missions, for which provision has been made by granting missionaries the faculty to celebrate Mass more than once on the same day; and likewise concerning other cases in which, either because of the distance of places, the scarcity of priests, or the persecution of unbelievers, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by priests lest the faithful be deprived of Mass.’ And the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was indeed speaking in the year 1832 about causes of this kind which have place in missions and for which the faculty is given to the superiors of missions, when it gave an opportune admonition to a certain missionary of Philippopolis who did not repeat Masses although he presided over various Christian communities. Namely, when the repetition of Mass was enjoined upon him, also by command of the general Congregation, it was added: ‘But if you ask why those rigorous clauses are added to the faculty of repeating Mass in the Formula of the Indult, you will find the response in the Formula itself; for you will observe that the Indult is not restricted to the needs of the people on feast days, but, since it is contained in general terms, it also comprehends the other cases in question, such as the necessity of administering Viaticum to the sick in each parish, and that the prescribed precautions ought to have place in other cases of this kind.’

“12. And in these less frequent cases, Bishops and missionaries have repeatedly seemed to hesitate in the use of that faculty, doubting especially about the sufficiency of the causes which would be required according to the clauses added to the faculty. But so many and so various are the cases which can occur in missions in this matter that they cannot easily be foreseen, much less reduced to determinate rules; for judgment concerning them can vary according to the differing concurrent circumstances of places, times, and persons. This is the reason why the resolution of particular doubts which have been proposed concerning this matter has generally been remitted to the prudent judgment of the superior of the mission.

“13. First, a rule has rather frequently been sought concerning the number of the faithful which would be sufficient for Mass to be repeated. In the Constitution Apostolicum ministerium, issued for England, it is said that a faculty of this kind can be used ‘when the number of those who on feast days are bound to assist at the sacred rites presents such a necessity that, unless the power to celebrate two Masses on the same day is granted to some priest, many would not satisfy the command of the Church.’ Nevertheless, a general norm of this kind does not remove every doubt concerning the number necessary for repetition. The same can be said of a certain negative response given by the Sacred Inquisition in the year 1688 to Capuchin missionaries in Greece. They 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, legitimately impeded, were unable to be present at the first Mass?’ And the Supreme Sacred Inquisition on 28 January of the same year decreed: It is not lawful. But if the number of twenty faithful is not deemed sufficient for Mass to be repeated, it can further be asked what minimum number is sufficient.

“14. But concerning a doubt of this kind, just as concerning those which regard distance, the Sacred Congregation was accustomed to hold that these matters were to be resolved by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries of missions, upon whom the faculty depends; for they themselves, in the places in which they dwell, can rightly estimate the circumstances concurring in individual cases. And indeed, as far back as the year 1688, the Prefect of the mission of Tunis in Mauretania asked in general that it be declared what the number of the faithful deprived of Mass ought to be for Mass to be repeated; and the General Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 16 November: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Prefect. Similarly, in the year 1828 the Bishop of St. Louis in the United States of America, having set forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their conscience because of the clauses of the Formularies, asked: ‘Whether, whenever thirty or fifty of the faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing the Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice?’ But, by command of Leo XII, it was rescripted in letters given on 13 March: ‘You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind and, without being disturbed by the rigor of the words, He—His Holiness—commits it to your conscience and prudence to judge in which cases, account having been taken of the circumstances of your diocese, grave causes are to be deemed present for imparting the faculty in question to priests. But where you have judged according to your conscience and prudence that these grave causes are present, His Holiness benignly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt.’

“15. A similar response was also given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who proposed the doubt concerning distance in this manner: ‘In this region, by ancient custom, permission to binate is sometimes granted because of moral necessity, although the nearer parish is not distant by more than the space of half a league; it is asked whether this is rightly done?’ The Sacred Congregation responded in letters of 31 July: ‘It being premised that it belongs to the office of Bishops to take care with all their powers that the use of this faculty not be necessary in order to succor the needs of the faithful, a general practice to be observed in individual cases cannot be assigned. Therefore, in particular cases as above, a supply of priests being lacking and all other circumstances having been maturely considered, it is to be determined by the prudent judgment of the superior whether, in that case, grave circumstances of affairs concur which the Doctors teach constitute a case of necessity—as the case proposed appears to be—in which there is room for dispensation from the universal precept concerning the same priest’s repeating the Sacrifice on the same day, and for granting the faculty of binating, which he plainly perceives from the very words of the Apostolic Indult that he ought to use altogether sparingly.’ And this instruction in the same words was sent to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, in whose name various doubts concerning the repetition of Mass had been proposed; for on 28 September it was rescripted to him that, his questions having been considered, the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction was to be given which ... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg received under date of 31 July 1851.

“16. Moreover, among the various responses which remit the measurement of the gravity of causes to the judgment of the superior, some deserve particular mention. Such are those which, while following the customary rule of remitting the estimation of causes to the judgment of the superior, at the same time indicate in some manner the kind or degree of necessity which the repetition of Mass requires, and repeatedly temper to some extent the fear and alleviate the excessive anxiety of mind which those clauses by which this faculty is restricted in the Formularies had created in Bishops and missionaries. One of the responses of this kind was given in the year 1848 to a Bishop in the United States of America; for in letters given on 9 May it was thus rescripted: ‘I come to your petition concerning the manner of interpreting the necessity which is required for the lawful use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day.... Let Your Excellency therefore know that the necessity of this kind in question is understood as true indeed, but moral, and not absolute; judgment concerning it in individual cases therefore depends upon prudent judgment, the circumstances having been considered. Accordingly, you must beware of excessive anxiety in judging this matter, lest the aforesaid faculty appear to have been granted in vain or to be reduced to act in almost no case.’ More worthy of note is the declaration sent in the year 1828 to a certain Apostolic Prefect in the Antilles of America. For since he did not trust that he could tranquilly use the faculty in question because of the grave conditions by which it was constrained, he had implored from the Apostolic See a broader faculty of granting priests ... ‘that on Sundays and feasts of precept they may celebrate Mass twice, when necessity or the spiritual utility of the faithful demands it.’ A report of this matter having been made to the Supreme Pontiff on 13 April, the response was given in this manner: ‘Such is the esteem of your virtue and prudence that Our Most Holy Lord commanded that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind; and if you shall judge it necessary or exceedingly useful to the faithful that priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day, you ought not to be disturbed by the rigor of the words in which the rescript appears to be contained. Therefore, He commits it to the prudence and conscience of Your Lordship to judge concerning this necessity and the gravity of the causes, and His Holiness benignly declared that, in those circumstances, you have by the aforesaid rescript the faculty of granting priests permission 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 was also observed when, in the cases themselves 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 the clauses of this faculty require. This indeed confirms that, in considering the causes which counsel the use of the faculty, great account must be taken of all the conditions and state of the faithful. An example of this matter is the response given by the Sacred Congregation in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the mission of Tripoli. Uncertain because of the clauses, he had asked ‘for precisely what number of slaves or free persons he could celebrate a second Mass, since the case sometimes occurred that, in the bath outside Tripoli, no more than ten or fifteen slaves were present at the Sacrifice ... and whether, in the absence of priests, a second Mass could be celebrated on feast days for these alone?’ Now, notwithstanding the resolution given in the same year by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition for a similar case, as was noted above in § 13, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 5 October: ‘Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Vice-Prefect.’ Nor ought it to seem strange that this Sacred Congregation admitted a more benign interpretation; for it concerned slaves who, because of their condition, deserved particular indulgence, since perhaps the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass was their sole consolation. Another argument of benignity of this kind, account having been taken of the circumstances, was furnished in the year 1860 by the Sacred Inquisition. For although on 20 June it responded to the Apostolic Vicar of a kingdom neighboring China that the desire of neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times in the year was not of itself a most urgent cause in the case in question—that is, for repeating Mass according to the faculty—it nevertheless added: ‘But, all the circumstances of places and persons having been weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Vicar.’ From these things it is gathered that those causes which are not grave in themselves and therefore in many places can become grave in other places because of the circumstances which accompany the case.

“18. These are the principles which have been kept before one’s eyes regarding the faculty of repeating Mass, and which certainly can render the Ordinaries of missions tranquil in the exercise of the same faculty. Although it is customary in this matter to defer to the wise judgment of the Ordinaries of missions, nevertheless, from what has been said thus far, it is evident with how much caution they ought to act, since their conscience always remains burdened in the legitimate exercise of an extraordinary faculty of this kind. Nevertheless, it will be helpful here that which the Sacred Congregation rescripted in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria: that the clauses employed in the Formularies are not to be understood with extreme rigor, the principle being kept before one’s eyes that the Apostolic See grants the said faculty for the spiritual good of the faithful, with the desire that all may easily fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.

“19. It now remains to speak of the rite, or of the manner in which Mass can be repeated. It was always prescribed to missionaries by the Sacred Congregation, and by Benedict XIV himself, that one who repeats Mass must not take the customary ablutions of the chalice because of the fast, so that ‘if in the first Mass, after receiving the Body and Blood, he has taken the washing, he ought not to celebrate a second Mass in the aforesaid cases’ (Council of Nemours, 1284, in Benedict XIV, On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, book 3, chapter 5, no. 4), that is, even in those cases in which the people would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrifice on feast days. And although in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the case of Ibiza on 16 September 1815 it was prescribed that there should be only one chalice which the one celebrating two Masses ought to use, nevertheless, since the execution of a Decree of this kind was subject to no slight difficulties when celebration had to take place in two churches distant from one another, the same Sacred Congregation, in general meetings held on 12 September 1857, rescripted by way of modification of the said Decree: the use of two chalices can be permitted in the case. The Instruction which is added here, composed by command of the same Sacred Congregation of Rites, concerns the manner of purifying the chalice which served for the first Mass.

“From the offices of the said Sacred Congregation, 24 May 1870.” A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 8 ff.; vol. 6, p. 345 ff.; Lucidi, chapter 3, § 2, no. 378 ff.

“1. Is a Pastor who governs two parishes and has the faculty of celebrating twice in one day bound to apply its own Mass for each parish, even if the revenues are small? 2. Is a Pastor who by faculty celebrates twice on the same day in one and the same parish obliged to apply both Masses gratuitously for the people committed to him? 3. Are vicars and other priests who do not have the care of souls, if they sometimes by faculty celebrate twice in one day in a parish, hospital, etc., themselves also obliged to apply the second Mass gratuitously for the people committed to them? 4. Whether and in what manner is it to be granted to Pastors who celebrate twice on Sundays and other feast days that they may have the free application of one Mass and be able to receive a stipend for it?—Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Negative, with the prohibition against receiving an alms for the second Mass remaining firm.—To the third: Negative, insofar as they do not have the care of souls, the prohibition against receiving an alms for the second Mass always remaining firm.—To the fourth: Negative, and the Bishop is to provide according to the form of the Constitution Cum semper oblatas of Benedict XIV, § 8.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 September 1858; Lucidi, vol. 3, p. 380, 3rd ed.; A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 69 ff.

“1. Can a priest who, from the Statutes of the Sodality in which he enrolled, is bound to celebrate Mass for a deceased member, apply the second Mass on a day of bination in order to satisfy this burden, in the case?

“2. Can a Pastor who was unable to celebrate Mass on the day on which it was to be read for the people apply the second Mass to be celebrated by bination on the following feast in order to satisfy this burden, in the case?—Response. To the first: Affirmative; to the second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 5 March 1887.

“In the case of a repeated celebration of Mass, some remuneration in view of the labor and inconvenience can be permitted at the prudent judgment of the Bishop, every alms for the application of the Mass being excluded.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 March 1861; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 514.

284. Three Masses can indeed, but need not necessarily, be said by any priest of the Latin rite: 1. on the feast of the Nativity of the Lord; 2. on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, November 2.⁴³⁰

Concerning Masses on the feast of the Nativity, the following must be noted:

a) If a priest celebrates only one or two Masses on this day, he must choose that which corresponds approximately to the hour of celebration, that is, the first if he celebrates at night; the second if around dawn; the third if after dawn.⁴³¹

b) A priest is not prohibited from receiving a stipend for each of the three Masses.⁴³²

c) Blind priests who by indult are permitted daily to say the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary or another votive Mass can say this Mass three times on this day.⁴³³

d) Even in private oratories, where on other days only one Mass is permitted, it is lawful to say three Masses on the feast of the Nativity.

e) Although it seemed lawful to some⁴³⁴ that all priests could say at least one Mass at midnight on the Nativity,⁴³⁵ nevertheless it follows both from the general rubrics of the Missal⁴³⁶ and from the Code of Canon Law, c. 821, § 2, that by common law only one conventual or parish Mass is then permitted. In all religious or pious houses, however, which have an oratory with the faculty of habitually reserving the sacred species, it is lawful for one priest on the sacred night of our Lord Jesus Christ to celebrate the three ritual Masses, or even, according to the circumstances, only one, and to minister Holy Communion to all.⁴³⁷ Nevertheless, this indult "does not import the faculty of celebrating with the doors of the oratories also open, nor can it be extended to churches of religious which serve for the public use of the faithful people, yet without prejudice to the privilege of religious of celebrating a [solemn] Mass at midnight."⁴³⁸ In some places, however, there exists a custom or privilege whereby every priest can say three Masses on the night of the Nativity even in public churches, and every member of the faithful can receive Communion there.

⁴³⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 806, § 1.

⁴³¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 19, 1875, and February 13, 1892 (Decr. auth., nn. 3354 and 3767 ad 21). Concerning the mystical signification of these three Masses, cf. S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 2 ad 2.

⁴³² Cf. Benedict XIV, Constitution Quot expensis, August 26, 1748; Code of Canon Law, c. 824, § 2.

⁴³³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 26, 1920, and January 12, 1921 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XII, 122; XIII, 155).

⁴³⁴ From c. Nocte sancta 48, dist. 1, De consecratione.

⁴³⁵ Cf. Donoso, Instituciones de Derecho canónico, n. 204.

⁴³⁶ Title 15, n. 4.

⁴³⁷ Motu proprio, August 1, 1907; Code of Canon Law, c. 821, § 2.

⁴³⁸ Holy Office, November 26, 1908.

285. Concerning Masses on November 2, the following must be noted:

a) It is not lawful to accept a stipend except for one of these three Masses.⁴³⁹ Nevertheless, the privilege granted from ancient times in some regions of receiving three stipends for three Masses does not seem to have been suppressed.⁴⁴⁰

b) A priest saying three Masses is bound to apply the second for all the deceased, and the third according to the intention of the Supreme Pontiff;⁴⁴¹ for these two Masses he can accept absolutely no stipend, except by reason of labor or an extrinsic inconvenience,⁴⁴² for example, in a distant place.

c) The first Mass is that which is inscribed in the Missal on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed; the second is that which is contained there in the anniversary of the deceased; the third is that which is read among the daily Masses for the deceased.⁴⁴³ But he who wishes to celebrate only one Mass is to say that which is found in the Missal on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed; this same Mass is also to be used if a sung Mass is celebrated. A priest singing Mass can freely say the other two Masses either before or after the sung Mass. He who wishes to say two Masses on this day is to take the first and second indicated above; one is to be applied according to the intention of the celebrant, the other for all the faithful departed.⁴⁴⁴ A priest to whom, because of weakness of sight or another just cause, the Holy See has granted the faculty of always saying the daily Mass for the deceased can say the same Mass three times.⁴⁴⁵

By special indult, some priests are permitted to say two or three Masses on certain days. An indult to say three Masses is customarily granted very rarely and with difficulty. The Sacred Congregation of the Council granted an indult of this kind on September 9, 1899, to the Diocese of Tulancingo in the Republic of Mexico.⁴⁴⁶

⁴³⁹ Benedict XV, Constitution Incruentum altaris, August 10, 1915 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis VII, 403).

⁴⁴⁰ Cf. Donoso, loc. cit., n. 204.

⁴⁴¹ Benedict XV, loc. cit.

⁴⁴² Pontifical Commission, December 13, 1923 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XVI, 116).

⁴⁴³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 11, 1915.

⁴⁴⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 28, 1917 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis IX, 187).

⁴⁴⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 26, 1920.

⁴⁴⁶ Cf. Analecta ecclesiastica VII, 452.

286. The faculty of bination, or of saying two Masses on Sundays and feast days, occurs very frequently today, whether from common law or from a special pontifical privilege.

In the primitive Church bination does not seem to have had a place. But already before the time of Innocent III bination occurred rather frequently, wherefore this Pontiff established: "Except on the day of the Lord's Nativity, unless a cause of necessity persuades otherwise, it suffices for a priest to celebrate one Mass once in the day."⁴⁴⁷ In the following centuries abuses sometimes crept in concerning this matter, because priests said several Masses more from greed for the stipend than from love of piety, and thence they also neglected other duties of the care of souls. Wherefore the Council of Trent, session 22, and Benedict XIV⁴⁴⁸ established that it is never lawful to celebrate two Masses on the same day except in a case of the spiritual necessity of the people, namely, if otherwise a notable part of the people could not satisfy the Sunday precept, or if some sick person could not receive Viaticum.

Concerning the faculty of bination, the following must be noted according to present common law or according to indults of the Supreme Pontiff:

1. It is not lawful to binate except on days of precept, in order that a notable part of the faithful may be able to hear Mass.⁴⁴⁹

Therefore it is not lawful to say two Masses on other days or on suppressed feasts,⁴⁵⁰ nor in a private oratory in order that some family may be able to hear Mass. Sometimes, however, the faculty of bination is granted in favor of nuns who are subject to strict enclosure.

When the Holy See was asked several times by various bishops how great a number of the faithful or how great a distance between churches is required for a Mass to be repeated, it did not wish to give a response, but left this to the prudence and conscience of the bishops. For the rest, one must not proceed in this matter with excessive severity. Wherefore Leo XII wrote on March 13, 1828, to the Archbishop of St. Louis in North America: "You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind, and, lest you be disturbed by the rigor of the words, he [namely, His Holiness] entrusts it to your conscience and prudence, so that you may judge in which cases, with account taken of the circumstances of your diocese, grave causes are to be considered present for imparting to priests the faculty of which there is question. But wherever you have judged these grave causes to be present according to your conscience and prudence, His Holiness benignly declared that you can use this faculty without any doubt." In these letters it is held to be a sufficient cause if 30-50 faithful cannot hear the prescribed Mass without bination. The Holy Office indeed judged on January 28, 1688, that the number of 15-20 persons who would otherwise lack Mass did not suffice; but a few months later in the same year the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith judged the number of 10-12 servants to suffice. "Nor ought it to be surprising if this Congregation [for the Propagation of the Faith] yielded to a more benign interpretation; for there was question of servants who, because of their peculiar condition, deserved indulgence, since the sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass was perhaps their only consolation." Thus the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of May 24, 1870, in which even the distance of half a league, that is, half an hour, of one church from another is not rejected, although neither is it expressly acknowledged as a sufficient cause of bination. This also depends upon the difficulty of the road and the weather.

⁴⁴⁷ c. 3, X 3, 41.

⁴⁴⁸ Constitution Declarasti nobis, March 16, 1746.

⁴⁴⁹ In mission territories the faculty of bination is sometimes granted even on weekdays. Likewise during a Eucharistic Congress. Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis XVI (1924), 157.

⁴⁵⁰ Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, May 24, 1870.

287. 2. By common law, yet dependently upon the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to judge concerning these matters, bination is not only permitted but also commanded in two cases: a) When a pastor "holds two parishes or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present with the celebrating pastor on feast days because of the very great distance of the places." Thus the cited Instruction. This case can easily occur, especially in mission territories. b) "When there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated and to which the whole people cannot assemble at the same time." Thus the same Instruction.

Although even in this second case the pastor must seek the previous permission of the bishop, nevertheless in a case of necessity, for example, when his assistant or the pastor himself suddenly becomes ill, this permission can and even must be presumed, since otherwise the faithful people would suffer harm. Afterward, however, the matter is to be reported to the bishop as soon as possible. The people are considered unable to assemble in the church at the same time not only because of the narrowness of the building, as some hold, but also because of distance and other inconveniences. Thus, for example, in nearly all rural parishes which are distant from one another by at least the space of half a league and in which only one priest celebrates Mass, such a necessity is considered present. For the faithful cannot leave homes, infants, animals, etc., without custody. Hence, when one part of the family assists at Mass, the other must remain at home. Therefore in these places the pastor must say two Masses so that all the faithful can satisfy the precept of hearing Mass.

288. 3. The Ordinary can permit a priest to say two Masses, even if other priests say Mass in the same church or in the same place, provided that otherwise a notable part of the faithful cannot assist at Mass.⁴⁵¹

In large parishes where the faithful people are very numerous, two or three Masses often do not suffice for all to be able to assist, whether because of the narrowness of the church itself or for other reasons. Then the bishop, who is unable to send as many priests as are necessary, can grant that some priest say two Masses, even if other priests celebrate Mass on the same day in the same church or place. Thus runs the practice in several places.

4. It is not lawful for a priest celebrating two Masses by an indult of bination to accept a stipend for the other Mass or to satisfy any obligation of justice,⁴⁵² unless he has special permission of the Holy See.

Therefore a pastor cannot apply one Mass for the people and take a stipend for the other Mass. But if special labor is joined to the second Mass, for example, a long journey, a late hour, an instruction to be given, etc., remuneration for this labor can certainly be accepted.⁴⁵³ Nothing prevents one celebrating two Masses from satisfying another obligation, for example, of charity, gratitude, obedience to the statutes of a sodality, etc., through the other Mass, as when he applies it for the deceased according to the constitution of the Order. For only an obligation of justice cannot be fulfilled through the other Mass. If a priest, contrary to a grave precept of the Church, took two stipends for two Masses, he must restore the other, since a title for retaining it is lacking. By a special pontifical indult, however, it is lawful to accept two stipends in mission territories and in some dioceses, for example, of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, etc.; but then it is customary to command that the other stipend be expended for pious causes determined by the bishop.⁴⁵⁴

⁴⁵¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 806, § 2.

⁴⁵² Sacred Congregation of the Council, September 25, 1858, March 21, 1863, and often.

⁴⁵³ Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 23, 1861; Code of Canon Law, c. 824, § 2.

⁴⁵⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 8, 1920 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XII, 541).

289. 5. The rite to be observed in bination is prescribed in this manner by the cited Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of May 24, 1870: The priest must say the second Mass fasting, and accordingly he cannot drink the ablution. A twofold manner of acting must be distinguished, according as another Mass is to be said on that day at the same altar after the first Mass has been said or not.

a) If the other Mass is to be said at the same altar, the priest is to proceed in this manner: "After carefully consuming the Blood of the Lord in the first Mass, with the customary purification omitted, leaving the paten covering the chalice and the pall covering the paten upon the corporal, he will say with joined hands: What we have received with our mouth, O Lord, etc. Then he will wash the fingers with which he touched the Most Holy Sacrament in some clean vessel prepared for this purpose on the altar. (This can be the vessel in which the fingers are customarily washed after Communion has been distributed outside Mass.) While washing his fingers he is to say: May Thy Body, O Lord, etc.; and after drying his fingers with the purificator, he will cover the chalice with the veil and place it, veiled, upon the unfolded corporal. When Mass is completed, if there is no sacristy in the church, he will leave the chalice upon the altar; otherwise he will carry it into the sacristy, and there place it upon a corporal or pall in some becoming and closed place until the second Mass, in which ... he will carry the chalice back to the altar and replace it upon the unfolded corporal." When he pours wine and water for the second Mass, he is not to wipe the chalice with the purificator.

b) If the other Mass is to be said in another church, then the Instruction given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on September 12, 1857, and contained in the first appendix of the Roman Ritual must be observed. The manner of acting is nearly the same as above under letter a). After the Last Gospel has been completed, however, the priest is again to uncover the chalice and inspect whether any of the divine Blood has settled at the bottom or not, which will generally occur. Therefore, if some drop of the divine Blood remains, it is again to be carefully consumed; this must in no way be omitted, because the sacrifice morally endures and, while the species of wine remain, must be completed by divine precept. Afterward the priest is to pour into the chalice as much water, at least, as he had previously placed wine, move it around over the same part from which he drank the sacred Blood, and pour it into the prepared vessel. He is then to wipe the chalice with the purificator, cover it, and carry it with him into the sacristy. After laying aside the sacred vestments, he is either to preserve the water poured into the vessel until the following Mass and drink it in the second ablution, or absorb it with cotton or tow and burn it, or pour it into the piscina.⁴⁵⁵

⁴⁵⁵ Cf. Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, n. 1352.

S. Th. III, q. 83, a. 2-6.

387. On the time of celebration. - A. Days. - For a priest well disposed, speaking in itself and with the prohibition of the Church set aside, it is licit to celebrate daily, indeed also laudable. For, as the Book of the Imitation of Christ says, IV, c. 5: "When a priest celebrates, he honors God, gladdens the angels, builds up the Church, helps the living, gives rest to the dead, and makes himself a participant in all goods." And St. Bonaventure, de praep. ad mis., c. 5: "The priest who does not celebrate, as much as is in him, deprives the Trinity of praise and glory; those existing in purgatory of refreshment; the Church of Christ of a special benefit; himself of medicine or remedy against daily sins and infirmities." "For because we daily need the fruit of the Lord's passion on account of daily defects," St. Thomas notes, a. 2, "daily in the Church this sacrament is regularly offered." Hence can. 820: "The sacrifice of the Mass can be celebrated on all days, except those which are excluded by the proper rite of the priest."

In the Latin rite:

1. The day of Parasceve is entirely excluded, because on that day the passion of the Lord is recalled insofar as it was really, i.e., bloodily, accomplished, and therefore is not represented mystically or bloodlessly (a. 2, ad 2). Nevertheless all the faithful are permitted to communicate, as will be said below, n. 392.

2. On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the Mass of Chrism is to be celebrated in cathedral churches after Terce. But the Mass in Coena Domini is to be celebrated solemnly in the evening, at the more opportune hour, not however before the fifth hour nor later than the eighth. But where the salvation of souls suggests it, the Ordinary of the place can permit that in any church or public oratory one or two low Masses be celebrated; in a semi-public oratory, however, only one, so that all the faithful may be able to assist at the Holy Sacrifice and also be refreshed by Holy Communion. Private Masses are forbidden. The low Masses which are permitted by the Ordinary are to be said at the same hours as the solemn one.

On Holy Saturday no Mass is permitted, except the solemn one at night (Decree Maxima Redemptionis, S. C. Rit., Nov. 16, 1955, with the annexed Instruction).

B. Hour. - According to present-day discipline, "the beginning of the Mass to be celebrated should not take place earlier than one hour before dawn or later than one hour after midday," can. 821, § 1.

Dawn is the beginning of the daylight of the day, or the irradiation of the first light, which precedes sunrise more or less according to the variety of times and places; where dawn is not had, it is to be taken from the beginning of civil, moral, and usual life, when men rise for work (S. C. R., Nov. 2, 1634). This time is to be taken not mathematically but morally, and indeed for a public Mass according to the common usage of the place; but for private Masses according to time whether true, mean, or legal (can. 33, § 1).

The prescription obliges under grave sin (Council of Trent, sess. 22; Pius V, March 29, 1566), so that a notable transgression of it is a mortal sin, such as is customarily judged to be one which exceeds a whole hour before or after the established time. Nevertheless exceptions are admitted:

1. From privilege, at least if it has been granted after the Council of Trent, as was done for certain religious orders.

2. From dispensation of the Ordinary in a particular case (S. C. R., July 7, 1899, ad 4).

3. From reasonable custom, for example that workers and servants may be able to hear Mass very early.

4. From a just cause occurring, for example a journey, public supplication, funerals, nuptials, administering Viaticum: a lighter cause suffices for a moderate departure from the time permitted by law, and the graver the anticipation or postponement becomes, the graver cause is required.

5. As is established by the decree of the S. C. Rit., of Nov. 16, 1955:

a) On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the solemn Mass, and also the low Masses which are permitted by the Ordinary of the place, must be celebrated in the evening, not however before the fifth hour nor later than the eighth.

b) On Friday in Parasceve the solemn liturgical rites are to be celebrated after midday, around the third hour. If, however, an opportune reason suggests it, they can be celebrated later, but not beyond the sixth hour.

c) The solemnities of the Paschal Vigil are to be held in such a way that the solemn Mass of the vigil begins around the middle of the night between Holy Saturday and the Sunday of the Resurrection of the Lord.

If, however, in the judgment of the Ordinary of the place it is expedient to begin the celebration of the Vigil earlier, this is permitted, but in no way before sunset.

6. On the night of the Nativity of the Lord, at midnight, but not before, the conventual or parish Mass can be begun, but not another without an apostolic indult (can. 821, § 2); but in all religious and pious houses having an oratory with the faculty of habitually reserving the most holy Sacrament, one priest can celebrate three ritual Masses, or, with the things to be observed being observed, only one (ibid., § 3); likewise holy communion can be ministered to those asking (ibid., and can. 867, § 4; cf. n. 392 A, c. 1). Nevertheless this does not import the faculty of celebrating with open doors: for in this matter even regulars should conform themselves to the prohibitions of bishops (S. Off., Nov. 26, 1908).

7. The Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus and the Instruction of the C. S. Office on the sixth day of January 1953 gives faculties to Ordinaries of places as to evening Masses. Namely, they enjoy the faculty of permitting the celebration of evening Mass in their own territory, if circumstances necessarily require this, notwithstanding the prescription of can. 821, § 1. The common good sometimes demands the celebration of the sacred mysteries after midday: for example, for workers of certain industries, who even on feast days succeed one another in shifts of labor; for those classes of workers who are occupied in the morning hours of feasts, as those assigned to the duties of ports; likewise for those who from distant regions come together in very great number into one place, to celebrate a certain religious or social festivity, etc.

The Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem of March 19, 1957, gives to Ordinaries of places, vicars general without a special mandate excepted, the faculty of permitting celebration of Mass in the afternoon hours, and this indeed daily, if the spiritual good of a notable part of the Christian faithful requires it. Masses of this kind cannot be celebrated before the fourth hour after midday.

C. How many times in a day. - According to can. 806, § 1, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord and the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, on which there is the faculty of offering the sacrifice three times, it is not licit for a priest to celebrate several Masses in a day, unless from an apostolic indult or from a power granted by the Ordinary of the place. This obliges under grave sin, so that a priest who presumes to act otherwise is to be punished (can. 2321). Accordingly:

1. In the Latin Church priests can celebrate three times on the Nativity of the Lord, in honor of the threefold nativity of Christ: temporal, spiritual, and eternal; likewise on the commemoration of all the departed; and he who from an indult always says a votive Mass, for example of the Blessed Virgin, or some Mass for the departed, can say the same respectively three times (S. C. R., Jan. 26, 1920).

2. The Ordinary of the place can grant the faculty of binating, but only "when, in his prudent judgment, on account of a scarcity of priests, on a feast day of precept a notable part of the faithful cannot be present at Mass (such as a multitude of at least 20 or 30 persons is judged to be); - but it is not in his power to permit more than two Masses to the same priest" (can. 806, § 2). Thus bination can be permitted, indeed commanded, if one priest rules two parishes or two churches sufficiently distant, or if there is only one church to which the whole people cannot come together at the same time for the same Mass because of the narrowness of the place or a less fitting time; provided, however, in either case that no other priest is present. But to say three Masses is not licit except from a special apostolic indult.

The faculty of binating, not indeed one had personally from an indult, but one granted by the Ordinary, is not merely personal, but real; whence, when the pastor is absent or impeded, the one supplying his place can use it. But in a case of sudden necessity the license of the bishop, if he cannot be approached, can be presumed; unless diocesan or provincial statutes require that the judgment of the vicar forane or dean intervene.

Priests who celebrate twice or three times can in the prior Masses take the prescribed ablutions, but with water alone being used, unless it is a matter of the three Masses on the day of the Nativity of the Lord or on the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed celebrated without interruption, in which they are bound to observe the special rubrics of these Masses.

3. Priests who celebrate the solemn Mass at night in the Paschal Vigil can on the day of the Resurrection also offer the festive Mass of the day, or even several Masses if they have the faculty for this.

Ordinaries of places who, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, celebrate the Mass of Chrism after Terce, can also celebrate the Solemn Mass in the evening. It is permitted to the same Ordinaries, if on Holy Saturday they have celebrated the Mass of the Paschal Vigil, also to celebrate the solemn Mass on Sunday in the Resurrection, without being bound to this (cf. Decree of the S. C. Rit. of Nov. 16, 1955, with the Instruction added by the same Sacred Congregation).

D. Time to be spent. - For a private Mass, the space of time to be spent should approach about a half hour; and, Benedict XIV warning, de sacrif. mis., sect. 2, n. 217, "it ought to reach at least the third part of an hour, and not exceed half an hour." He will not easily be excused from mortal sin who completes Mass within a quarter hour, at least habitually, since this of itself is apt to import grave irreverence toward the sacrament and grave scandal of the people: thus St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 400.

Question 3. Is it lawful to celebrate more often in a day?

Resp. §1. Except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord and the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, on which there is the faculty of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice three times, it is not lawful for a priest to celebrate several Masses in a day, unless from apostolic indult or from power granted by the local Ordinary.

§2. But the Ordinary cannot impart this faculty unless, in his prudent judgment, on account of scarcity of priests on a feast day of precept, a notable part of the faithful cannot be present at Mass; nor is it in his power to permit more than two Masses to the same priest (Can. 806).

The Baltimore Fathers, Third Plenary Council, nn. 103 and following, speak thus: "Up to this time the Church has wished to determine by no precise rule when otherwise repetition of Mass is legitimate or even necessary. Rather, it has preferred to leave the matter to be decided by the judgment of Ordinaries, so that in their prudence and charity, according to the gravity of the cause, they may repeat Mass or permit it to be repeated by their missionaries.

"But neither does the Holy See wish that, on account of fear of the rigor by which the formula of the faculty is fortified, those using the same should be excessively anxious. For from often-repeated Apostolic declarations and responses it is manifest that for repetition a true necessity is indeed required, but by no means an absolute one, rather a moral one, which is to be judged to exist as often as, with supply of priests lacking and with all other circumstances maturely weighed, it is judged that it will be vehemently useful to the faithful that priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day. If such a necessity has been present, let them not only not fear liability of illicit repetition, but rather let them judge that they will be failing in their duty if either they themselves do not repeat Mass for the necessity of the people or do not concede this faculty to their missionaries.

"Let missionary priests note well that they can never use the aforesaid faculty except 'dependently upon the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to pass sentence both concerning the true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying canonical remedies,' and that permission is not to be presumed by anyone so long as recourse to the Ordinary is open." - Cf. Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 103 and following; and Appendix, pp. 233 and following. - Acta S. Sedis, vol. 12, pp. 232 and following; vol. 13, pp. 340 and following; vol. 16, pp. 35 and following.