The Acceptance of Stipends and on the Obligation Arising from It

I. Acceptance of stipends. 1. It is lawful for no one to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated by himself that he cannot satisfy them within a year - understand: from the day the obligation was undertaken - (canon 835), whether because the number offered exceeds the days of the year, or because the priest has already undertaken so many burdens that he cannot fulfill new ones within a year. The decree Ut debita contained the same disposition, with this addition: "yet always preserving the contrary will of those offering"; since this addition has been omitted in the Code, the liberty seems more restricted. Nor, however, should the new law be taken in such a way that, for example, it would be considered illicit to receive a stipend for twelve anniversary Masses.

2. In churches in which, on account of the peculiar devotion of the faithful, alms for Masses flow in such abundance that all the Masses cannot be celebrated there in due time, the faithful are to be warned, by a notice placed in a conspicuous and obvious place, that the Masses offered will be celebrated either there, when this can conveniently be done, or elsewhere (canon 836).

II. The obligation arising from a stipend regards both the celebration and application according to the intention of the one giving the stipend, and the circumstances intended by him, and the time determined either by him or by the Church. It is, moreover, an obligation of justice; nor does it stand in the way of this obligation that the one giving the stipend is ignorant of the norms established by the Church concerning time. It suffices that he intends the Mass as it is to be said according to the Church; but the priest, by accepting the stipend, tacitly binds himself to the norms established by the Church.

1. Celebration and application according to the intention of the one giving the stipend is imposed principally, and indeed for each individual stipend. Hence canon 828: "There are to be celebrated and applied as many Masses as there have been stipends, even small ones, given and accepted." Moreover, the omission of even only one Mass is certainly grave if the matter of the stipend with respect to the giver is grave, and there is not question of a large number of Masses to be celebrated for the same intention.

It is disputed, first, whether the omission of one Mass to be celebrated because of a stipend whose matter is light is grave. Several deny it; but with St. Alphonsus (VI, 317, q. 3) and others we affirm it. For an obligation owed from justice is grave if there is question of a grave thing, such as a Mass is. But that he who is deprived of the good of the Mass can obtain another Mass with a small stipend in no way prevents the one who is bound from justice to furnish a grave good from being bound under grave sin to do this.

It is disputed, second, whether the omission of one Mass is grave if there is question of a large number of Masses to be celebrated for the same intention. But the argument alleged above seems also to support the opinion which teaches that the omission is grave in this case too.

It is disputed, third, whether one who has received a small stipend is bound under grave sin to restore it in the case in which he can neither say the Mass himself nor take care that it be said by another, for he is bound to these things. Now this seems altogether to be denied, since it does not appear that the obligation of restoring a light thing is grave.

2. Due circumstances. On this point, first let canon 833 be noted: The offerer is presumed to have asked only for the application of the Mass; if, however, the offerer expressly determined that certain circumstances were to be observed in the celebration of the Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will. These points are especially to be noted:

a) The circumstance of place. Founded Masses must be celebrated in the place designated by the founder. It would be a grave sin often and without just cause to depart from this rule (St. Alphonsus, VI, 329). Nevertheless the beneficiary is not bound personally to celebrate the Masses, unless the founder expressly established this (St. Alphonsus, VI, 330). Moreover, the bishop can, by interpreting the will of the founder, permit by way of dispensation that for a just cause the Mass be celebrated in another place (St. Alphonsus, VI, 329).

As regards manual Masses, the circumstance of place must be observed under grave sin if, considering the circumstances, the place must be judged to pertain to the substance of the obligation, as easily happens if there is question of a nuptial Mass, a funeral Mass, or a Mass to be celebrated before a miraculous image. If the assigned place does not pertain to the substance of the obligation, neglect of it is light, and for a just cause not foreseen it becomes lawful.

b) The circumstance of a privileged altar. Concerning this, note:

alpha) One who is bound to celebrate at a privileged altar does not satisfy by applying another plenary indulgence to the deceased.¹

beta) A priest having the personal privilege of a privileged altar satisfies, even though he celebrates at an altar that is not privileged.²

gamma) The quality of a Requiem Mass, feria, or vigil, and likewise the addition of the prayer for the deceased, is no longer required for the value of the indulgence.³

delta) One who has not satisfied the circumstance of a privileged altar is bound to compensation, for example to applying another plenary indulgence to the soul of the deceased; he can accomplish this, for example, by saying the prayer En ego, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 329).

c) The circumstance of the quality of the Mass - for example, of a Requiem or votive Mass - if it is expressly determined,⁴ must be observed under venial sin, but not under grave sin, because there is no question of the substance, but only of an accessory of the contract. But if the rubrics prohibit the quality of the Mass from being observed, generally, from the presumed consent of the one giving the stipend, the obligation is satisfied by another Mass. It is more advisable, however, that if it can conveniently be done, the requested Mass be said on another day.⁵ If the priest foresees that the requested quality of the Mass cannot be observed on the assigned day, the offerer should be forewarned.

d) The circumstance of Gregorian Masses entails that thirty Masses be celebrated for the same deceased person (by one priest or by several priests), and this through thirty uninterrupted days. Moreover, one who voluntarily interrupted the series is bound to begin it anew; if someone did this involuntarily, it suffices that he complete the number and in some way compensate the detriment, for example by applying a plenary indulgence.

¹ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 2 May 1852; 24 July 1885 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 18, p. 94).

² Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 15 March 1852.

³ Holy Office, 19 February 1913 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1913, p. 122).

⁴ The quality of the Mass is expressly determined if a Mass of Requiem or a votive Mass, for example of St. Gerard, is requested; but not if it is requested for a certain intention. It is disputed whether or not it is sufficiently determined if a Mass is requested for a deceased person, or in honor of St. Gerard, or for a living person. Most deny it; indeed they rightly judge that generally only the application is intended, and in no way the quality of the Mass. Others say otherwise, but the response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (3 March 1761, n. 2461, ad VII), on which they rely, does not settle our question when rightly posed. For the Sacred Congregation responded: "On days on which private votive Masses or Masses of the dead can be said, a priest bound to them by reason of a foundation or an accepted manual stipend does not satisfy his own obligation by saying the Mass of the occurring day; for the expressed will of testators or petitioners, provided it is reasonable, must be fulfilled." But we ask when he is bound to the quality of the Mass.

⁵ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 June 1896, n. 3922, General Decree, § IV, n. 3; 13 June 1899, n. 4031, ad IV.

3. Due time. Founded Masses and Masses after the manner of manual Masses must be celebrated on the day and at the hour designated by the founder. It would be a grave sin often and without just cause to depart from this rule (St. Alphonsus, VI, 329). Nevertheless the bishop can, by interpreting the will of the founder, permit by way of dispensation that for a just cause the Mass be celebrated on another day or at another hour (St. Alphonsus, VI, 329).

As regards manual Masses, receive these points:

a) If the offerer has expressly assigned a time, the Masses must absolutely be celebrated at that time (canon 834, § 1). A lengthy delay is a grave sin; likewise a slight delay is grave if it is such that a Mass requested for an instant necessity is not said in good time, according to what is to be said under c.

b) If the offerer has expressly left the time to the judgment of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which is more pleasing to himself, with the prescription of canon 835 remaining firm (canon 834, § 3); compare that canon with n. 219.

c) If the offerer has expressly assigned no time for the celebration of manual Masses:

alpha) Masses offered for an urgent cause must be celebrated as soon as possible within the useful time (canon 834, § 2, 1). Neglect of the useful time is gravely illicit and carries with it the obligation of restoring the stipend.

beta) In other cases the Masses must be celebrated within a moderate time, according to the greater or smaller number of Masses (canon 834, § 2, 2). In this matter, the decree Ut debita can be taken as a norm; it established that "the useful time for fulfilling obligations of manual Masses is one month for one Mass, six months for one hundred Masses, and another longer or shorter space of time more or less, according to the greater or smaller number of Masses" (n. 2).¹ Besides, the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded that the prescribed terms are to be understood separately with regard to each one who offers a stipend, not cumulatively with regard to all who offer. For the rest, a delay greater than is just, such as by force of natural law seems to be one which exceeds the time assigned above, is gravely or lightly illicit, according as it is notable or light. Moreover, a delay longer than a month beyond the legitimate time, and indeed even a shorter delay if there is question of the recently deceased, seems notable. Finally, it is equitable that some number from the Masses for the recently deceased be celebrated as quickly as possible (St. Alphonsus, VI, 317, question 2).

¹ As regards intermediate numbers, the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded on 27 February 1905: "the matter is left to the discreet judgment and conscience of priests according to the decree and the rules handed down by approved doctors." Hence these can be established:

III. Cessation of the obligation. Although the alms for Masses already received have perished without the fault of the one who is burdened with celebrating, the obligation does not cease (canon 829). The reason is clear: for the fact that the priest is deprived of his own thing, that is, of the stipend received, does not deprive another of the right, received and perfected through the handing over of the stipend, that Mass be applied to his intention. Nevertheless, one who has lost the alms, for example, can take care that another celebrate the Mass for a smaller stipend.

In Benefices which are conferred in title, the Beneficiary is not bound to give a stipend according to the measure of the revenues of the Benefice; "but it is enough that the Rector of the Benefice, who can celebrate through another, assign to the celebrating priest the congruous alms according to the custom of the city or province, unless another thing has been provided by the foundation of the Benefice itself." S. C. C. approved by Urban VIII, Const. Cum saepe, 21 June 1625. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 4, p. 39 ff., 537 ff.

"Chaplains legitimately impeded on some day of any week, who satisfy the celebration of Masses through another priest, are not bound to pay to this priest the stipend established for Chaplains, but only the manual alms." S. C. 14 Apr. 1725.

"The whole alms is to be paid (by a parish priest in manual Masses); unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess of the common alms was offered in view of the parish priest himself." S. C. C. 25 July 1874.

A testator left to Church N. 500 scuta, so that from the revenues each year as many Masses would be celebrated as could be celebrated, an alms of three lire having been given for each one. It is asked whether the aforesaid Church could give to the celebrant one lira while retaining the other two for itself? Response was made: "that only the customary alms is owed to the celebrating priest; but the rest yields to the advantage of the Church." S. C. C. 3 Aug. 1638.

Catharina de Saccharo imposed on her heirs the celebration of as many annual Masses in perpetuity, with an alms of three lire for each one, as could be celebrated from the fruits of the inheritance. A part of these came to the Seminary, which asked from the S. C. whether it could give one lira for each Mass. Response was made: affirmatively. 18 July 1699.

“8. A priest can lawfully accept a doubled stipend for the same Mass by applying to the petitioner even the most special part of the fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII.”—“10. It is not contrary to justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices and to offer one Sacrifice. Nor is it contrary to fidelity, even if I promise, by a promise confirmed even by oath, to the person giving the stipend that I shall offer for no other.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“9. After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are entrusted can satisfy through another, a smaller stipend having been conferred upon him and another part of the stipend retained for himself.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

In benefices which are conferred as a title, the beneficiary is not bound to give a stipend in proportion to the revenues of the benefice; “but it is sufficient that the rector of the benefice, who can celebrate through another, give to the priest celebrating a fitting alms according to the custom of the city or province, unless something else was provided in the foundation of the benefice itself.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, approved by Urban VIII, Constitution Cum saepe, 21 June 1625. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 4, p. 39 ff., 537 ff.; C. 867.

“It is lawful for a removable chaplain to retain part of the stipend, provided that certain revenues have been established annually for the chaplaincy; but otherwise if a certain alms is given to a chaplain of this kind for each Mass to be celebrated.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 March 1745.

“Chaplains who are legitimately impeded on some day of any week and who satisfy the celebration of Masses through another priest are not bound to pay this priest the stipend established for the chaplains, but only a manual alms.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 April 1725.

“The entire alms is to be paid by a Pastor in manual Masses, unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess over the common alms was offered in view of the Pastor himself.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 July 1874. Cf. M. E., vol. 6, part 1, p. 169 ff.

A testator left 500 scudi to Church N., so that from the revenues each year as many Masses as could be celebrated would be celebrated, with alms of three libellae given for each. It is asked: Could the aforesaid church give one libella to the celebrant, retaining the other two for itself? The response was: “Only the customary alms is owed to the priest celebrating; the remainder, however, falls to the benefit of the church.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 3 August 1638; A. S. S., vol. 4, p. 41.

Catherine de Saccharo imposed upon her heirs the celebration in perpetuity of as many annual Masses, at an alms of three libellae for each, as could be celebrated from the fruits of the inheritance. A part of this inheritance fell to a seminary, which asked the Sacred Congregation whether it could give one libella for each Mass.—The response was affirmative. 18 July 1690. Cf. M. E., vol. 1, p. 479 ff.

4. Obligation of celebrating by reason of stipend - Lambertinus had accepted a stipend from Florimund for one hundred Masses to be celebrated. Since meanwhile other rich Mass stipends were offered to Lambertinus by others, Lambertinus accepted all these, and immediately celebrated the Masses. Hence he celebrated the aforesaid one hundred Masses over a space of six months.

Quaer. Whether Lambertinus celebrated the aforesaid one hundred Masses within the due space of time?

R. It seems that it must be affirmed, if Florimund indicated to Lambertinus no reason from which the aforesaid celebration would have to be urged more quickly, for example, if he had handed over a rich and extraordinary stipend, if it concerned a person very recently deceased, etc. A special reason of urgency being excluded, Lambertinus satisfied his obligation. For first, by celebrating one hundred Masses in the space of six months, he celebrates the accepted Masses almost continuously, for he celebrates them almost on alternate days. Nor does it seem that the one giving the alms can demand more in the Case. Moreover, if for the obligation of one Mass a space of two months is commonly assigned, a greater space is certainly required when it is a question of several Masses. Wherefore, if it is a question of sixty Masses to be celebrated, a space at least twice as great seems to be granted, unless the offerer expressly declares otherwise. M. E. v. 1. p. 480., I. M. 624.

2. The definition and determination of manual Masses which is made here is to be understood and held only for the effects of the present Decree. Paragraph Declarat.

3. Now these are Masses entrusted to others to be celebrated: 1. those which are not established in perpetuity or quasi-perpetuity; 2. those which are established in perpetuity, but not constituted in some church or annexed to some benefice; 3. those which are constituted in some church, or annexed to some benefice, but are celebrated outside that church, or by another and not by the beneficiary, for whatever reason. Paragraphs Declarat, Pariter, Ad instar.

4. But Masses annexed to benefices, which by law can and must be handed over to other Priests when the beneficiary does not celebrate and apply them himself, are those which from the tables of foundation the beneficiary is not bound to celebrate himself. St. Alphonsus, book 6, n. 330; paragraph Ad instar.

Likewise Masses which from a perpetual burden adhere to a church, monastery, confraternities, or any pious places whatever, which by law can be handed over to other priests, are those which are constituted in no church, so that they can be applied anywhere by any priest at the judgment of the administrators. Paragraph Ad instar; Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 19, 1904.

5. The terms established are: one month for one Mass, a half-year for one hundred Masses, or another longer or shorter space of time according to the greater or lesser number of Masses; in such a way nevertheless that it is lawful for no one to assume so many Masses that he himself probably cannot satisfy them within a year from the day of the obligation undertaken, always preserving the will of the offerers, whether explicitly or implicitly demanding a shorter time or conceding a longer one. Paragraphs Iam vero, 1, 2, 3.

6. No one can seek and accept more Masses than he can probably celebrate within the established terms of time, whether by himself or through Priests subject to him. Therefore the collection of Masses made by a private person so that they may then be distributed among various Priests, although poor, is prohibited. And "by himself": nevertheless it is not prohibited to accept Masses so that someone may hand them over to the Ordinary or Prelate, or to accept them not so that he himself may celebrate them, but so that he may hand them over to another, the offerer having been warned about this matter. Paragraph Iamvero, 1.

7. A month is established for one Mass indefinitely, and therefore whether it is a question of Masses for the living or for the departed. If it is not a question of the recently departed, to defer them for a week seems to be only a light sin. For one Mass, or for several, which are not given by one and the same offerer, but by several: namely, for each one then the useful time will be one month from the day of acceptance. Therefore, if in that time the Priest could not celebrate all, he is bound to warn the offerers, unless the will of the offerers is otherwise established. Paragraph 2; Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

8. A half-year is established for one hundred Masses, namely if they are accepted from one and the same offerer. It seems only light if someone were to defer a few of them, four or five, for a brief time, for three or four weeks. There are those who extend the brief time to five weeks. Paragraph 2.

9. From the fact that the Decree assigns a month for one Mass as the useful time, and a half-year for one hundred, various Authors assign variously the time for another number of Masses. But since for several Masses, one hundred in number, a half-year is assigned, that is, 180 days for 100 Masses, evidently the Sacred Congregation assigns 14 or 15 Masses for each month, that is, a Mass to be celebrated almost every other day. Hence the useful time, more or less as it is said by the same Sacred Congregation, can easily be determined for another number of Masses. And thus it seems possible to deduce that for two hundred Masses the useful time will be an entire year, for three hundred a year and a half, etc. Paragraph 2.

The Archbishop of Lviv of the Ruthenians proposed the following computation to the Sacred Congregation: namely, that up to ten Masses one month be established; for the first and second month, twenty Masses celebrated; and for each subsequent twenty Masses one month always be established successively, and thus for one hundred, six months are had. The Sacred Congregation neither approved nor reproved it, but answered: the matter is left to the discreet judgment and conscience of Priests, according to the Decree and the rules handed down by approved doctors. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

10. But it is lawful for no one to assume so many Masses that he himself probably cannot satisfy them within a year from the day of the obligation undertaken, always nevertheless preserving the contrary will of the offerers, who either demand a shorter time for the celebration of Masses, whether explicitly or implicitly because of some urgent cause, or concede a longer time, or spontaneously give a greater number of Masses. Paragraph 3.

11. Therefore, if three hundred Masses are offered to someone by the same offerer, which he himself could not satisfy except within a year and a half, he is bound to warn the offerer; but he can simply accept them if he can and wishes to celebrate them within a year. But if six hundred Masses are offered by the same offerer, it is evident that then the offerer is altogether consenting to the delay of celebration beyond a year, since all cannot be celebrated in one year by one and the same Priest. On the contrary, the offerer can implicitly demand a shorter time for the celebration of Masses because of some urgent cause, for example if it is a question of Masses for the recently departed, which under grave obligation must be celebrated at least within a month, and which, for example, are offered to a regular Prelate of some monastery, namely so that they may be celebrated by the regulars of that monastery as soon as possible.

368. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What is to be judged a just stipend for a celebrating priest? Reply. The amount of a just stipend cannot be determined universally. It is lawful to demand the stipend established by the Bishop or by custom. - St. Lig., no. 319. Regulars also are bound under grave obligation to conform themselves to this rule, according to a Decree of the Sacred Congregation cited by Benedict XIV, Instit. 56, no. 10. - St. Lig., no. 320. Indeed, at least with regard to manual alms, the Bishop can prohibit acceptance of a stipend smaller than the established rate. - Benedict XIV, ibid. ². Nevertheless, just as a smaller stipend can be accepted from charity or friendship, so also a larger one may lawfully be received from the liberality of the giver. Likewise, a priest can receive more for extraordinary labor, for example, for celebrating Mass at such an hour or in such an inconvenient place, etc.

² The decrees which Benedict XIV (Instruct. 56, no. 20) reports regard only perpetual obligations of Masses; and in them it is established that the Superiors of Regulars should not permit a larger or smaller sum of money to be fixed in the future for perpetual Masses. The rate established there by Innocent XIII, namely, sixty scudi annually, is not now observed and cannot be observed because of the changed value of money. The same occurs with regard to stipends for adventitious Masses, which at that time reached ten Roman asses at Rome and which the Sacred Congregation then decreed were not to be changed, as the same Benedict XIV relates (loc. cit., no. 23). But although a stipend twice as great is now given, who would say that it is adequate for the decent support of a priest? And it is indeed astonishing that some are now found so foolish as to clamor against the riches of clerics, when, because the value of money has now changed so greatly, we see that the wages both of laborers and craftsmen and of those devoted to public or private offices have been increased; but we know that the stipends established for the support of clerics have until now been fixed at that amount which, although it was adequate some centuries ago, now scarcely suffices for living a most straitened life!

QUESTION 2. Does a priest who, after accepting a stipend, delays celebrating Mass sin gravely?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that he violates a contract in a grave matter. This is also established from the Decrees of the S. Congregation of the Council of the year 1652. - St. Lig., no. 317.

372. QUESTION 9. Is one who retains part of the stipend bound to restitution?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1. Because this is deduced from the condemned proposition of Alexander VII related above. For the proposition said that a priest who retained a part of the stipend could satisfy through another; therefore, it follows that the contradictory is true, namely, that he cannot satisfy. But satisfaction regards not only the moral goodness of the act, but also its justice; and one who does not satisfy an obligation of justice is bound to restitution. 2. Because a priest who divides the stipend acts against the will of the giver; for the will of the giver is not only that the Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend. For he does not wish gratuitously to give anything to one who does not celebrate. - Thus St. Lig., no. 322, saying that this opinion is to be held. It is disputed, however, to whom restitution ought to be made, namely, whether to the one giving the alms or to the celebrant. It seems it should be made rather to the celebrant. - St. Lig., ibid.

QUESTION 10. Can a priest to whom a generous stipend is offered for today's Mass, retaining it, ask another priest to celebrate in his place, while promising to celebrate on the following day for the person for whom that other priest was going to celebrate for the ordinary alms?

Reply. It is disputed. The first opinion denies it, as though this could not be excused from the appearance of base gain ⁴. - Thus St. Lig., no. 322, dub. 4, who nevertheless adds that this does not seem to be condemned as a grave sin.

⁴ For this opinion St. Alphonsus adduces nothing except the authority of Concina, who leaves the matter to the judgment of prudent men if the priest is poor - as though poverty could remove from sacred ministries the appearance of base gain! For the rest, the second opinion is not only far more probable because of the solidity of its reasons and the weight of authority, but is also confirmed by the most common practice of devout and prudent priests.

** The VV. found several things (pp. 386-388) to criticize in this little note. Nevertheless, they admit (p. 387) that this exchange of intentions is lawful in itself, even when the stipends are retained by both priests. Thus they say: We do not deny, nor does the Holy Doctor disapprove, that a priest can, speaking per se, exchange an intention with another, while each priest retains his own... stipend. And in fact occasions for requesting this of another priest are not so infrequent, as happens, for example, if you have accepted a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a certain day, and on that day it unexpectedly happens that you ought to celebrate Mass either for a sick person, or for a deceased person, or for a bridegroom and bride, etc. But since, as the VV. admit, St. Alphonsus finds nothing that can in itself be censured in an exchange of intentions of this kind, those things which the VV. object readily fall of themselves.

Concina (De Eucharistia, diss. 2, ch. 6, sec. 2, no. 16) speaks thus on this matter: Nor do I see how this can be excused from the appearance of base commerce. For this exchange of days and Masses tends to produce greater gain. The sole end of the exchange is commerce. The meaning is somewhat obscure, for the word mercimonium of itself signifies the same as merchandise. But the VV. bring assistance by interpreting appearance as semblance, and by understanding base commerce (p. 387) as base gain. Meanwhile, it is sufficiently astonishing that in former times no one saw this baseness until Concina at last brought some light into the world! The VV. note (loc. cit.) that few of the Authors have touched upon this question. But since both the VV. themselves and St. Alphonsus (as they themselves admit) found nothing to disapprove in this exchange of Masses, is it not evident that the matter was scarcely treated by anyone for this reason, namely, that there was no ground for calling its uprightness into doubt? But let us come more closely to the point.

Let it now pass that, as we have said, other causes are often present on account of which this exchange of intentions happens to be requested; nor, moreover, is it customary to inquire which priest accepted the larger stipend. But why, finally, is it base gain? Concina answers: because greater gain is sought; and the VV.: because he seeks another priest lest he lose a julius. But what if a priest wishes to preserve the larger stipend, which he thinks has been offered to him by divine providence, so that he may bring assistance to a sick person, or help a needy old woman, or buy a moral work of St. Alphonsus either for himself or to give to another priest? For, with St. Alphonsus approving, it is honorable to exchange an intention while retaining one's own stipend. But to will to use an honorable means for assisting the poor is also honorable. Where, then, is the baseness? But if the VV., with Concina, imagine that it is done inordinately, namely, for a less honorable end, then certainly the end of the agent accidentally adjoined will be called depraved, but not the work considered in itself.

The VV. add (loc. cit.): In the Note the weight of authority is vaunted, but which authorities these are is not indicated.

Reply. The fact that throughout so many centuries there existed only the most rigorous Concina (as St. Alphonsus says), who found here the guilt of base commerce, as he calls it, already proves more than sufficiently that against him stood both those who touched upon the question and those who, by the very fact that they raised no question about it, taught that none was to be raised. Did not St. Alphonsus also (as the VV. admit) find no guilt in this matter unless recourse is had to some inordinate end by which the priest might perhaps be moved? And does not the suffrage of all against Concina alone have some weight of authority?

The VV. insist (loc. cit.), saying that they wonder that in the Note it is remarked as less coherent that Concina excepted the case of a poor priest, as though poverty could remove the appearance of base gain. For, say the VV., if a poor priest does this, he acts not as moved by desire for gain, but in order to provide for necessity; and then the appearance of base gain is in fact removed.

Reply. This excuse of Concina confirms what was said above: that the act which, considered in itself, can be judged indifferent should not generally be presented as culpable, since it can become good or bad according to the diversity of the end.

For poverty alone cannot furnish a priest with an honorable end on account of which he may honorably judge that the stipend offered to him is to be preserved for his own uses. But that an act of this kind, honorable in itself, should be painted with those terms full of odium, gain and commerce, ought indeed to have been left to Concina's heated imagination; for verbal sallies of this kind are not to be regarded as theological reasons.

The VV. add (loc. cit.) that they do not know whence it was established that devout and prudent priests most commonly observe a practice disapproved by St. Alphonsus.

Reply. Whoever is not a stranger in this world plainly knows that occasions are not infrequent for exchanging an intention among priests so that the will of one offering a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a stated day may be satisfied. Yet when devout and prudent priests act thus, they do not observe a practice painted by Concina's fervid genius with the colors of base gain and commerce, but the practice which the VV. themselves testify was not disapproved by the Holy Doctor Alphonsus.

Finally, the VV. recall that in the year 1860 the S. Congregation of the Council replied concerning certain doubts about Mass stipends: Let the petitioner consult theologians, especially St. Alphonsus de Liguori and Benedict XIV, and conform himself to their opinions.

Reply 1. The present question is by no means found among the doubts proposed to the Sacred Congregation. Therefore, this does not pertain to the matter. 2. Do not the VV. themselves admit that this practice is not disapproved by St. Alphonsus?

The second opinion affirms it, with Lacroix, no. 134, and others.

257. Note. When pastors of souls must apply Mass for their subjects, they can accept absolutely no stipend, not even for another Mass which they may perhaps celebrate by virtue of the faculty of bination. Thus by common law.³⁴⁹ By a special indult of the Holy See, however, the acceptance of a stipend for the other Mass is sometimes permitted, and even commanded, to be expended for certain pious causes.

³⁴⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 824, § 2.

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

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

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

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

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

³⁶⁸ De sacr.¹⁷, n. 186.

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

373. The obligation of celebrating arises from a handed-over stipend. - A stipend is a sum of money or another thing estimable by price, which is given to a priest for support, with the charge of offering the sacrifice to a determinate end. That obligation is of commutative justice: it arises from an onerous unnamed contract, do ut facias, by which, on the one hand, the priest, having accepted the stipend, is bound from justice to celebrate for him who furnished the stipend, so that if he does not do so, he is bound to restore; and on the other hand, when with the promise of a stipend the priest has celebrated for someone, this person is bound from justice to pay the stipend.

That contract is not one of buying and selling a sacred thing, and simoniacal, but licit: for the stipend is not given as the price of the Mass or of labor intrinsic to it and inseparable from it, but only for the support of the priest, that he may be able to carry out his ministry. For a) a painter is said to paint a church gratuitously, even if colors and other things necessary for painting are given to him, indeed also support itself; - b) just as wax, bread, wine, and sacred vestments can be required from the faithful, so also the support of the priest who is necessary for the sacrifice of the Mass; - c) for priests can live from the priesthood, because it is said, I Cor. IX, 13-14: Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary, and those who serve the altar share with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that those who announce the gospel should live from the gospel; since He had said: For the worker is worthy of his food..., of his wage (Matt. X, 10; Luke X, 7); whence also in the Old Law priests were fed by the victims; - d) surely no one is bound to deliver himself gratuitously to the service of others (I Cor. IX, 7); therefore priests can live from the offerings of the faithful; but if they deliver themselves to the particular service of one person by applying Mass to him, they can require from him a particular offering; - e) with which agrees the universal practice of the Church, approved by its authority: Council of Trent, sess. 22, de obs.; Council of Constance, sess. 8, prop. 25; Pius VI in the condemnation of prop. 54 of the Synod of Pistoia; and can. 824, § 1: "According to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, it is permitted to any priest celebrating and applying Mass to receive an alms or stipend."

It is confirmed from the origin of the stipend, which is in the offerings of the faithful. In the primitive Church, within the solemnities of Masses, the faithful gave their offerings, namely bread and wine, at the altar, from which priests took the things necessary for the sacrifice offered for all; the things which remained over yielded partly to clerics and partly to the poor. Afterwards, besides bread and wine, for the use of priests and clerics, other things were offered as alms: oil, milk, honey, fruits, incense, then also coins. From this it came about that they also offered coins before Mass, and those offering asked that the sacrifice itself be offered specially for them. From the seventh century the custom was introduced of celebrating thus for particular faithful persons to a special intention; in the twelfth century the use of stipends is universal.

374. Corollaries. - From the aforesaid it follows:

1. Not only a poor but also a rich priest can accept a stipend, as universal practice bears: for everyone can live from his office, and the worker is worthy of his wage; nor is he himself, but he who asks for the sacrifice, bound to furnish the things necessary for it.

2. On the day of the Nativity of the Lord, three stipends are licitly accepted, because the whole which the priest receives on that day and on other days does not exceed the sustenance necessary for the whole year; in itself this would also be licit on the commemoration of all the departed, or in bination, unless the Church prohibited it in order to restrain cupidity. Whence can. 824, § 2: "But as often as he celebrates several times in a day, if he applies one Mass from a title of justice (i.e., from office, benefice, or stipend), the priest, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, cannot receive an alms for another, except some remuneration from an extrinsic title."

3. Beneficiaries who from a foundation are bound to celebrate Mass on certain days, but not to apply it, can accept a stipend from another to whom they apply it: for in this case the stipend of the foundation is given on account of extrinsic labor, or an office undertaken toward the parish, church, or chapel.

375. Quantity of the stipend. - The title of the stipend is the support of the priest, not indeed of one whole day, for in the rest of the day he can also preach, teach, and do similar things; nor precisely support for the time of the Mass alone: for celebration impedes the priest for a great part of the day from many other works by which he could seek his livelihood; wherefore St. Alphonsus says that support for half or a third part of the day suffices.

Since food, clothing, habitation, books, and other things necessary for priests, just as also money itself, are not always of the same value, and since circumstances of places and times vary, the stipend also varies. But just as the price of things can be taxed by civil authority, so also the Supreme Pontiff, and the Bishop in the diocese, can determine the quantity of support to be given and the quantity of money corresponding to it; which determination is presumed right unless it contains evident injustice; whence it effects that priests cannot require more, nor the faithful, against the will of the priest, give a lesser stipend for a celebrated Mass, without acting unjustly. But if a legal taxation is lacking, the stipend is determined by custom. Hence can. 831:

"§ 1. It belongs to the Ordinary of the place to define the manual offering for Masses in his diocese by decree, issued, as far as possible, in a diocesan Synod; nor is it licit for a priest to require a greater one.

"§ 2. Where a decree of the Ordinary is lacking, the custom of the diocese is to be observed.

"§ 3. Even religious, although exempt, must stand, concerning the manual offering, by the decree of the Ordinary or by the custom of the diocese."

To require beyond the just stipend is simony, at least of ecclesiastical law (can. 730).

376. Observations. - 1. A Bishop cannot prohibit priests from accepting a greater stipend spontaneously offered (S. C. C., Jan. 16, 1649); but he can prohibit a lesser one from being accepted, lest the sacrifice of the Mass become cheapened (S. C. C., July 16, 1689). Hence can. 832: "It is right for a priest to accept a greater offering voluntarily offered for the application of Mass; and, unless the local Ordinary has prohibited it, also a lesser one."

2. A priest can require a greater stipend for extraordinary labor and for a title extrinsic to the Mass, for example for a long journey, a later hour, chant, a determinate day, etc.; unless this is already owed from elsewhere. Not, however, for a spiritual emolument, for example for celebration at the altar of a miraculous image; whence can. 918, § 2: "For Masses to be celebrated at a privileged altar, a greater alms for the Mass cannot be required under pretext of the privilege."

3. It is licit to make an agreement concerning the stipend of Masses, but according to the taxation or custom: for since it is given from justice, nothing prevents it from being brought into an agreement; nevertheless scandal is to be avoided in such agreements, as much as possible.

377. The quality and quantity of the obligation from stipend. - From a stipend there arises the obligation of celebrating the sacrifice according to the intention of him who gives the stipend. The obligation is of justice, because the priest and the faithful person enter into a true contract, in which on the one hand the faithful person furnishes the stipend so that Mass may be celebrated, and the priest on the other hand accepts the stipend with the burden of celebrating the sacrifice. The obligation, even of saying one Mass, is from its genus grave, because the gravity here is to be measured not from the stipend but from the spiritual fruit, the privation of which is a notable harm.

This is clear from the insistence with which the Church in many decrees urged the grave obligation, and from the fact that authors today now commonly teach this; - unless perhaps the number of Masses to be said to the altogether same intention is great, or unless the stipend is so slight that the Mass is judged to have been promised gratuitously, because a simple promise, in itself and unless someone intended otherwise, does not oblige under grave sin.

Hence in the case in which one Mass has been omitted, the grave obligation remains of applying it as soon as possible, if the end can still be obtained, or of warning the offerer and returning the stipend. And one who has omitted to apply a Mass in fitting time is bound from justice to restore the stipend; nevertheless the obligation of restoring is not grave unless the stipend constitutes matter at least relatively grave.

378. The mode of fulfilling the obligation. - The obligation contracted from a stipend can be considered:

1. As to the person. Speaking in itself, the priest can satisfy by himself or through another; but if the giver bears this with difficulty, nevertheless there does not seem to be a grave obligation of celebrating by himself, because satisfaction is made as to substance even through another.

From can. 838: "Those who have a number of Masses concerning which they may dispose freely, can assign them to priests acceptable to themselves, provided that it is well established to them that these are beyond all exception or are commended by the testimony of their own Ordinary"; nevertheless in that case "they are held by the obligation until they have obtained testimony of the obligation accepted by the same priests and of the stipend received" (can. 839).

A fortiori it is licit to hand over Masses to be celebrated to the Ordinary.

2. As to number: The priest is bound to celebrate and apply as many sacrifices as he has accepted stipends, even if they are slight (can. 828), because the one giving the stipend asks for a certainly valid application, indeed a Mass reserved to himself, to the exclusion of others if the application made to these should harm him.

Hence one who has done otherwise is bound to reparation if it is still possible, and otherwise to restitution. Cf. Urban VIII, June 21, 1625; and propositions 8 and 10 condemned by Alexander VII.

3. As to time: The priest is bound to celebrate at the time explicitly or implicitly determined (can. 834).

Hence a) he who accepted a stipend that he might celebrate on a certain day, for example on a determinate feast, is bound to celebrate on that day; b) a Mass requested for an urgent necessity, for example for one in agony, for winning a lawsuit soon to be judged, for one recently deceased, for a happy childbirth, for avoiding danger, must be celebrated as soon as possible and in useful time; c) if a great number of Masses is handed over to the same priest at the same time, or if the one handing them over knows that the priest is bound to many other Masses, then he is deservedly judged to consent to a longer delay; on the contrary if a great number is handed over to a community of many priests; d) those who offer stipends in places where, on account of a great concourse, many stipends are offered, are judged to consent to delay; e) but if the time is determined in no way, the priest is bound to celebrate within a moderate time, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses; f) if the offerer has expressly left the time of celebration to the judgment of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which pleases him more, but at least within a year to be computed from the time of reception. Thus according to the norm of can. 834 and 835.

The S. C. C., May 11, 1904, interpreted a moderate time thus: "within a month for one Mass, and a semester for 100 Masses, and another longer or shorter space of time, more or less long, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses," for example, a month for 3 or 4 Masses, 40-45 days for 10, 2 months for 20, 3 for 40, 4 for 60, 5 for 80, 6 for 100, a year for 200 (S. C. C., Feb. 27, 1905). This taxation, although the Code abstained from proposing it, nevertheless furnishes a prudent rule from which one should not depart much. But it is to be taken not mathematically but morally, and it is to be understood with respect to individual offerers, not cumulatively with respect to all. The time is to be computed from the moment at which the Masses are received, whether from the donor, or from the one handing them over, or even from the Ordinary, unless something else is established (can. 837), i.e., unless something else has been agreed upon either explicitly or implicitly, as if an urgent cause is present, or the time has been expressly determined, or the one transmitting adds a condition.

A notable delay is a grave sin: it obliges to restitution if the cause of celebrating has ceased; if it remains, the priest is bound to compensate by spiritual goods (as by prayers, fasts, indulgences) the spiritual harm which perhaps followed from the delay.

4. As to place and quality and other circumstances. If the offerer has expressly determined some circumstances in the celebration of the Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will (can. 833).

The priest, if he cannot or will not observe the circumstances, must warn the offerer about this; and if that person does not contradict, he is not bound to the circumstances. If he has celebrated while not observing the circumstances, in grave matter he must supply the defect. Nevertheless he is not bound to restore the stipend, unless the circumstance was intended by the offerer as a condition without which not.

Hence a) when someone accepts a stipend that he may celebrate in such a place, for example at the altar of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in such a chapel, he is bound to celebrate there; nevertheless the omission of this circumstance generally is not gravely culpable, and is excused by a reasonable cause, nor of itself does it induce the burden of restitution; the omission of the same circumstance in many Masses of the same donation would more easily be grave, provided the circumstance had been stipulated for a grave reason.

b) One who by a stipend is bound to celebrate at a privileged altar does not satisfy at another altar, unless he enjoys the personal privilege of an altar, nor does he satisfy by applying another plenary indulgence, because the deceased does not gain this so certainly (S. C. Indulg., May 2, 1852). But if from an error committed in good faith he has not satisfied, he is bound in compensation to apply another plenary indulgence to the deceased (S. C. Indulg., Feb. 22, 1847, and July 24, 1885).

c) One who is bound to say a votive Mass does not satisfy by applying the Mass of the day, unless a legitimate impediment excuses; nevertheless this defect of itself does not exceed venial sin.

d) If a faithful person asks for a Mass for a deceased person, the priest satisfies by a Mass of the saint and is not bound to say a Mass of requiem, unless it was expressly requested; similarly one who must apply for the living satisfies by a Mass of requiem, unless another was expressly asked for. The offerer is presumed to seek only the application, not the rite (can. 833).

e) If a Mass is asked in honor of some mystery of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of a Saint, satisfaction is made by the Mass of the current day, unless a votive Mass is expressly asked; although it is more advisable, as far as possible, to satisfy by a votive Mass (S. C. R., June 13, 1899).

f) If a faithful person asks for a sung or solemn Mass, the priest applying a low Mass validly applies, but does not perfectly satisfy (S. C. P. F., June 8, 1844), and therefore he is bound to celebrate a sung or solemn Mass, which nevertheless he does not owe to this faithful person, but can apply to another.

g) If thirty Gregorian Masses are asked, Mass is to be celebrated without interruption for thirty continuous days for one and the same deceased person, though it is not necessary that it be celebrated by the same priest. They are called Gregorian because, as the S. C. Indulg. declared, March 15, 1884, it is piously and reasonably believed that the souls for whom they are applied are specially helped by them on account of the intercession of St. Gregory, so that they may be liberated from purgatory. It is essential that the Masses be celebrated without interruption through thirty continuous days, the last three days of Holy Week excepted (S. Off., Dec. 12, 1912).

Hence that circumstance gravely obliges. Whence he who voluntarily interrupted the tricenary is bound to repeat the series; but if involuntarily, whether he is bound so to supply, they dispute. Several deny it, because the priest is not judged to have willed to oblige himself to this, nor the one offering the stipend reasonably to require it; nevertheless they advise applying a plenary indulgence to the deceased in compensation.¹ But they speak too confidently, for the whole matter depends upon the intention of the one bestowing the stipend; and there are among those bestowing, especially in certain regions, some who strictly require certainly valid execution of the contract. Whence in practice it seems rather, for caution, that recourse must be had to the Sacred Penitentiary;² nevertheless some judge that it also suffices that the one interrupting take care that one Mass be celebrated at a Gregorian altar in the City, or at some other altar which is privileged after the manner of the Gregorian, because they think that in this way the same assistance of St. Gregory is obtained.

¹ Thus, for example, Marc, Aertnijs-Damen, Prummer, Cappello.

² Thus Vermeersch, Th. M., III, n. 278, which Cappello also holds, o. c., n. 769.

379. Corollaries. - Hence the following dispositions are easily understood:

I say 1st. §1. 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 (Can. 824); but once the stipend has been accepted, there arises an obligation of justice, which indeed is not satisfied by one single Mass if several stipends have been accepted, however infinite the value of the Mass may be; rather, for each stipend a distinct sacrifice must be offered. The reason of the first is both because the stipend is not given as the price of the Mass, and therefore no comparison is made between a sacred thing and money, and because it is just that those who work in the sanctuary should live from the sanctuary. But the reason of the second is that, once a stipend has been accepted, a burdensome pact intervenes, which by title of justice, not otherwise than in any other contract, must be observed. Finally, the reason of the third is taken both from prop. 8 condemned by Alexander VII, which has itself thus: "A doubled stipend can be accepted by a priest for the same Mass, by applying to the one asking even the part of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself"; and especially from the first part of prop. 10 condemned by the same Alexander VII, which lies thus: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice." Wherefore he who celebrates one Mass, when he has accepted several stipends, is held no less to restitution than he who, having accepted only one stipend, says no Mass. - Cf. Viva, on the cited proposition. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 369.

I say 2nd. Every species of negotiation or commerce must be altogether warded off from the alms of Masses (Can. 827).

Question 1. With relation to the acceptance of a stipend and the application of the Mass, what is not lawful?

Resp. It is never lawful:

1st. To apply Mass to the intention of him who, with the alms offered, is about to ask for the application, but has not yet asked, and afterward to retain the alms given for the Mass previously applied;

2nd. To receive alms for a Mass which is owed and applied by another title;

3rd. To accept a double alms for the application of the same Mass;

4th. To receive one alms for the celebration alone, another for the application of the same Mass, unless it is certainly established that one stipend was offered for celebration without application (Can. 825).

Question 2. Which stipends are called manual, which after the manner of manual, and which founded?

Resp. §1. Stipends which are offered by the faithful for Masses, whether from their own devotion, as if to the hand, or from an obligation, even perpetual, made by a testator upon his own heirs, are called manual.

§2. Stipends of founded Masses are called after the manner of manual when they cannot be applied in their own place, or by those who ought to apply them according to the tables of the foundation, and therefore by law or by indult of the Holy See they must be handed over to other priests so that satisfaction may be made for them.

§3. Other stipends which are received from the revenues of foundations are called founded, or founded Masses (Can. 826).

Question 3. How many Masses must be celebrated and applied?

Resp. As many Masses must be celebrated and applied as stipends, even small ones, have been given and accepted (Can. 828).

Question 4. What if the alms have already perished before the application of the Mass?

Resp. Although without fault of him who is burdened by the obligation of celebrating the alms of Masses already received have perished, the obligation does not cease (Can. 829).

Question 5. How must the number of Masses be computed, if the offerer has given a sum of money without indicating the number?

Resp. If anyone has offered a sum of money for the application of Masses, not indicating their number, this is to be computed according to the alms of the place in which the offerer was staying, unless it must legitimately be presumed that his intention was otherwise (Can. 830).

Question 6. Whose office is it to define the manual stipend of Masses?

Resp. §1. It belongs to the local Ordinary to define the manual stipend of Masses in his diocese by decree, issued, as far as can be done, in the diocesan Synod; nor is it lawful for a priest to demand one greater than this.

§2. Where a decree of the Ordinary is lacking, the custom of the diocese is to be observed (Can. 831).

It is lawful for a priest to accept a greater stipend freely offered for the application of a Mass; and, unless the local Ordinary has prohibited it, also a lesser one (Can. 832).

Question 7. What is the presumption when there is doubt concerning the mind of the offerer?

Resp. The offerer is presumed to have asked for the application of the Mass alone; yet if the offerer has expressly determined some circumstances to be observed in the celebration of Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will (Can. 833).

Question 8. Within what time must Masses be said?

Resp. §1. Masses for the celebration of which a time has been expressly prescribed by the offerer must be celebrated altogether at that time.

§2. If the offerer has expressly prescribed no time for the celebration of manual Masses:

1st. Masses offered for an urgent cause are to be celebrated as soon as possible in useful time;

2nd. In other cases Masses are to be celebrated within a moderate time, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses.

§3. But if the offerer has expressly left the time of celebration to the choice of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which pleases him more, with the prescription of can. 835 remaining firm (Can. 834).

With relation to §2, 2nd, that moderate time seems to be one month for one Mass, six months for a hundred.

Question 9. How many burdens of Masses to be celebrated by himself is it lawful for no one to receive?

Resp. It is lawful for no one to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated by himself that he cannot satisfy them within a year (Can. 835).

Question 10. What must be done in churches in which, on account of the particular devotion of the faithful, alms of Masses so flow in that all Masses cannot be celebrated there in due time?

Resp. Let the faithful be advised, by a notice placed in an open and obvious place, that the Masses offered will be celebrated either there, when it can conveniently be done, or elsewhere (Can. 836).

Question 11. When must one who has Masses to be celebrated through others distribute them?

Resp. He who has Masses to be celebrated through others should distribute them as soon as possible, with the prescription of can. 841 remaining firm; but the legitimate time for their celebration begins from the day on which the priest who will celebrate has received them, unless something else is established (Can. 837).

Canon 841 prescribes the following:

§1. All and individual administrators of pious causes, or those obliged in any way to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, toward the end of each year should hand over to their Ordinaries, according to the manner to be defined by them, the burdens of Masses for which satisfaction has not yet been made.

§2. But this time is to be understood thus: that in Masses after the manner of manual, the obligation of depositing them runs from the end of that year within which the burdens should have been fulfilled; but in manual Masses, after a year from the day of the burden undertaken, with the different will of the offerers being preserved.

Question 12. To which priests can one who has a number of Masses concerning which it is freely lawful for him to dispose assign them?

Resp. He can assign them to priests acceptable to himself, provided it is honestly established to him that they are above every exception or commended by the testimony of their own Ordinary. - Cf. Can. 838.

Question 13. How long do those remain obliged who have handed over to others to be celebrated Masses received from the faithful or in any way committed to their faith?

Resp. They remain obliged until they have obtained testimony of the obligation accepted by those same persons to whom they handed them over, and of the stipend received. - Cf. Can. 839.

Question 14. Must one who commits Masses to be celebrated to others give the accepted stipends entire? Is it ever lawful for him to retain something?

Resp. §1. He who transmits manual Mass stipends to others must transmit the accepted stipends entire, unless either the offerer expressly permits something to be retained, or it is certainly established that the excess above the diocesan tax was given in view of the person.

§2. In Masses after the manner of manual, unless the mind of the founder stands in the way, the excess is legitimately retained, and it is enough to remit only the manual alms of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the rich alms takes the place in part of the dowry of the benefice or pious cause (Can. 840).

Question 15. To whom does the right and office of watching that the burdens of Masses are fulfilled pertain?

Resp. In churches of seculars it pertains to the local Ordinary; in churches of religious, to their Superiors (Can. 842).

Question 16. Who are held to have a book into which they report in order the number of Masses, the intention, the alms, and the celebration?

Resp. §1. Rectors of churches and of other pious places, whether secular or religious, in which alms of Masses are accustomed to be received, should have a special book in which they accurately note the number of Masses received, the intention, the alms, and the celebration.

§2. Ordinaries are held by the obligation of reviewing books of this kind at least each year, either by themselves or through others (Can. 843).

§1. Likewise local Ordinaries and religious Superiors who commit Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or to others should quickly report in a book, in order, the Masses which they have received with their alms, and should take care according to their strength that they be celebrated as soon as possible.

§2. Indeed, all priests, whether secular or religious, must accurately note what intentions of Masses each has received, and for which he has made satisfaction (Can. 844).

Question 17. Can a priest to whom a rich stipend is offered for today's Mass retain this and ask another priest to celebrate for him, promising to celebrate on the following day for the same one, who is about to have it celebrated for the ordinary alms?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least probably, both because nothing appears in this permutation of intention which savors of the appearance of base gain, and because thus bears the most common practice of pious and prudent priests. Nor, finally, is a sufficient weight of authority lacking to this opinion; indeed, St. Alphonsus himself is not altogether alien from embracing it, nor does he condemn a practice of this kind as mortal. - Cf. Ballerini, note (a), p. 254.

Question 18. Does one satisfy who, after accepting a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a privileged altar, celebrates the same Mass on another altar?

Resp. Negatively; and besides, as is established from a recent response of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences given 24 July 1885, a defect of this kind cannot be supplied or compensated by some other plenary indulgence applicable to the dead. - Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 17, pp. 595 and following. - Ballerini-Palmieri, vol. 5, p. 676, n. 104.

Question 19. Is one obliged by a stipend to celebrate on a privileged altar for a deceased person bound to read a Mass of Requiem when the rite permits it?

Resp. Negatively. Thus the Holy Office, Feb. 20, 1913.

Question 20. What is to be said about that custom which exists in very many Dioceses of the United States, namely that on the day of the Commemoration of all the Dead a rich sum of alms is collected, and one Mass is said for all?

Resp. It is not to be disapproved; for, when the doubt was proposed by the Bishop of Rochester, the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded on 27 Jan. 1877: "Let nothing be innovated; only let a notice be placed in the church, by which the faithful are taught that by those very alms one Mass is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed." - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 10, p. 120. - The Pastor, vol. 3, p. 382.

Question 21. By what name do pious foundations come?

Resp. §1. By the name of pious foundations are signified temporal goods given in any way to some moral person in the Church, with the burden, in perpetuity or for a long time, of celebrating some Masses from the annual revenues, or of fulfilling other predefined ecclesiastical functions, or of performing some works of piety and charity.

§2. A foundation, legitimately accepted, takes on the nature of a synallagmatic contract: I give that you may do (Can. 1544).

It belongs to the local Ordinary to prescribe norms concerning the dowry below which a foundation cannot be admitted, and concerning the distribution of its fruits. But in order that a foundation can be admitted, the consent of the local Ordinary, given in writing, is required; before he gives it, he must know that the moral person can satisfy its new and old burden, and that the revenues altogether answer to the burdens. Furthermore, in the acceptance, constitution, and administration the patron of the church has no right. Money and movable goods are to be deposited in a safe place, and let them cautiously be invested as soon as possible for the benefit of the foundation. But all foundations are to be consigned in writing; a double copy of the records is to be preserved, one in the archive of the Curia, the other in the archive of the moral person. With the prescriptions of can. 1514, 1517, and can. 1525 being observed, in any church a table of burdens arising from foundations is to be prepared, and besides the book concerning which in can. 843, §1 (on Masses), another book is to be retained, in which individual perpetual and temporary burdens, their fulfillment, and the alms are noted. - Cf. Can. 1546-1549. If there is question of foundations in churches, even parochial ones, of exempt religious, the cited rights and offices of the local Ordinary belong exclusively to the major Superior. - Cf. Can. 1550.