The Application of Mass

174. The Mass must be applied. The application of the Mass is the intention by which the priest wills that the ministerial fruit of the sacrifice come to some determinate person. Now this fruit can and must be applied by the intention of the celebrant to those for whom the sacrifice is offered.

a. For the priest by ordination is constituted dispenser of the mysteries of God and receives the power of offering the sacrifice and of applying its fruit both for the living and for the dead.¹ Since, therefore, application has been committed to the priest, according to the opinion of many the Mass profits no one, and its fruit remains in the treasury of the Church, if the priest himself does not apply the fruit of the sacrifice, or if the one to whom the fruit is applied is not capable of it.

b. There are, however, those who think that, if the application is null or if it is made to one incapable, in gratuitous Masses the ministerial fruit comes to the celebrating priest, but in Masses owed from a stipend this fruit comes to the relatives of him who gave the stipend.² For they think the priest always has the implicit and habitual intention that the fruits of the sacrifice come to himself, unless they are applied to another; and that the faithful founding or asking for Masses have this implicit and habitual intention, that if the Masses do not profit them, they profit those to whom they are joined by some relation.

c. Nevertheless, the practice is altogether to be recommended of explicitly applying the fruit under condition either to himself or to another, if at any time there is doubt whether he for whom the sacred action is offered is capable. And in gratuitous Masses fruits can indeed be applied under the condition: if he is not capable; but in Masses owed: if it can be done without prejudice to him who gave the alms.

d. From these things it is understood that the second intention, for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered, is an application which, besides the first, whether from some title owed or made from free choice, is elicited. This second intention can be made in two ways: either conditionally, so that the fruit comes to another if he to whom it is applied in the first place is not capable of it; or absolutely, so that besides him to whom the Mass is applied in the first place, from the same Mass the fruit also comes to another. A conditional second intention is usually made by those who fear lest the fruit of the Mass remain wholly or partly in the treasury of the Church, because the subject of the first intention is not capable of it. An absolute second intention is usually made by those who think the fruits of the Mass are infinite and therefore that the second intention profits equally as much as the first. But since this opinion is scarcely probable, the absolute second intention belongs only to the particular Memento.

e. Application, or the offering of the Mass for determinate faithful, is called public if the faithful are publicly advised for whom the sacrifice of the Mass is offered; semipublic if the priest and he who offered the stipend know for whom the sacrifice of the Mass is applied; occult or secret (others say private) if only the priest knows for whom he wishes to apply the fruit of the Mass; it is called private when the priest gives to another the fruits which he himself, as a private person, receives from the sacrifice of the Mass (n. 176, 3).

¹ Cf. Hebr. 5:3.

² Lugo, disp. 19, n. 225; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, n. 1042.

175. For whom the Mass can be offered. Generally it must be said that the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for all who are capable of some fruit, unless it is prohibited by the Church. But the saints in heaven, the damned in hell, and little children who have died without baptism are not capable of fruit; besides these, however, all, both living and dead, can receive some fruit from the sacrifice of the Mass. Wherefore the Mass can be offered and applied for all, even sinners, infants, the possessed, heretics, infidels, unless a peculiar prohibition of the Church stands in the way.

a. That the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered in general for the dead detained in purgatory, and that it profits them, is certain from faith;¹ nevertheless it is not established whether the fruit of the Mass is applied to that soul in particular for whom the Mass is offered: for it can happen that divine justice prevents the hidden reasons why the fruit of the Mass should come to it. Likewise it is not established in what measure it is applied to it: for God determines these things according to the disposition of the soul and its merits. Finally, it is not established in what way the sacrifice of the Mass aids the dead: for although it is certain that the Mass, by reason of the satisfactory fruit, immediately obtains the remission or mitigation of their punishments, nevertheless it is not equally certain whether the Mass, by reason of the impetratory fruit, obtains remission of punishment immediately or only mediately by obtaining graces by which the faithful are moved to pray and offer satisfactions for the same soul.

b. It is clear that those for whom the Mass is offered receive from the sacrifice applied to them only those fruits of which they are capable, but the rest, unless they are applied to another, remain in the treasury of the Church. Only an adult Christian existing in the state of grace is capable of all the fruits; to infants there can come only the impetratory fruit; to sinners only the propitiatory and impetratory fruit; to the dead directly (as it seems) only the satisfactory fruit can come.

c. In honor of the saints the sacrifice of the Mass is offered: alpha. to God, in order to honor Him in His saints; beta. for giving thanks to God for the gifts of grace and glory given to those saints themselves and for the gifts of grace conferred upon men through the intercession of the saints; gamma. for obtaining from God, through the merits and intercession of the saints, goods both spiritual and temporal; delta. finally, that the worship of the saints here on earth may be increased.

d. For little children who have died after baptism the sacrifice of the Mass is offered for a latreutic and eucharistic end, so that God may be worshiped and thanksgivings offered to Him because they, through the mystery of redemption, without merits of their own, have been made participants in eternal salvation.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 2 and can. 3, De sacr. miss.

176. Whether for infidels, heretics, and excommunicated persons. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for living infidels, both generally for all and for individuals, not only for obtaining their conversion, but also (with a stipend accepted, if one wishes) for their other intentions, provided scandal is absent and it is established that nothing evil, or of error, or of superstition underlies it, because infidels are capable of the impetratory fruit and are not excluded by the Church from receiving it.¹

2. For excommunicated persons not to be avoided, to whom heretics, schismatics, and apostates also are reckoned, the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered privately and with scandal removed, not only for obtaining their conversion, but by the new law (with a stipend accepted, if one wishes) also for their intention.

3. For excommunicated persons to be avoided it is not licit to offer Mass even privately, except for their conversion.²

But because the Church deprives excommunicated persons to be avoided only of her public and common suffrages, nothing prevents the priest, as he is a private person, from offering Mass for them and, in the Mass, especially in the Memento, from praying for the same. For the sacrifice of the Mass, insofar as it is offered by the priest as a private person, produces ex opere operato the most special fruit, which the priest can give even to an excommunicated person; and ex opere operantis it has all the effects which any work of virtue has (n. 170). Now, just as with other good works, so also the effects of the Mass produced ex opere operantis the priest can give and apply to another, even to an excommunicated person. The Memento, of which we speak, is indeed itself also a public prayer of the Church; yet insofar as it is made by the priest as a private person, it has the impetratory effect of prayer, which can be given to all without discrimination.

4. The sacrifice of the Mass can be offered publicly for all the dead who died in external union with the Catholic Church, and who therefore also were endowed with ecclesiastical burial.

5. It can be applied privately for all the dead remaining in purgatory,³ even for excommunicated persons, to whom heretics, schismatics, and apostates are reckoned, excluding only those who died in the act of sin and before death gave no signs of penance.

a. It is very doubtful whether dead infidels or non-baptized persons are capable of the satisfactory fruit. For theologians think that those effects which are conferred through visible signs cannot be communicated except to those who visibly adhere to the Church.⁴ Nevertheless for dead catechumens the sacrifice of the Mass seems able to be applied, because by faith and the desire of baptism they already in some way pertain to the Church.⁵

beta. Those who are enumerated in n. 5, if before death they gave signs of penance, are to be absolved from excommunication after death; if they did not give signs of penance, the priest who secretly celebrates for them must above all avoid the scandal of the faithful. For this reason he should be advised to tell those asking for Mass that he wishes to celebrate for the dead of this family, and not specifically for this deceased person, if they can be helped through the Mass.

Note 1. For the faithful who died in the act of sin, as drunkards, suicides, etc., the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered publicly, unless they have been deprived of ecclesiastical burial; in that case it is licit to celebrate Mass for them only secretly.

For the faithful who notoriously died in a state of mortal sin, the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered under condition: if before death he repented - if perhaps he was in the state of grace. But by reason of scandal, an application of this sort cannot be made publicly.

Note 2. An application made against the law of the Church is indeed illicit, but nevertheless is not invalid; hence if a priest accepted a stipend for an application of this sort, once the application has been made, he is not bound to restitution of it. If someone, however, against the prohibition of the Church, offers Mass for an excommunicated person to be avoided, the fruit which corresponds to the Mass insofar as it is offered in the person of Christ is validly applied to him; but the fruit which corresponds to the Mass insofar as it is offered in the name of the Church is neither licitly nor validly applied to him.

¹ Holy Office, 12 July 1865; Cn. 809.

² Cn. 809; Cn. 2262, 2, n. 2.

³ Cn. 809.

⁴ Cf. Lugo, disp. 19, sect. 10.

⁵ Cf. Aichner, Compend. iuris. eccles., sect. 51.

177. Conditions of valid application. In order that the application be valid, these three things are required:

1. That it be made by the celebrant himself: for the dispensation of the fruits has been entrusted by Christ to the priest, from whom he also has the power of sacrificing. Nevertheless it is not required that the application be actual or virtual; even habitual and implicit application suffices: for application is made in the manner of a donation; but a donation once made is valid and remains until it is revoked. Yet although an intention once made certainly is not extinguished by the duration of several months, nevertheless it cannot be extended to a time too long (to several years) without losing its value.

a. But application depends so much on the will of the celebrant that if he applies contrary to the will of his superior, it is indeed illicit, but nevertheless not invalid.

b. A celebrant would effect nothing with this intention: I perform the sacred action for him to whom God, or Christ, or the Blessed Virgin applies it.

2. That it be made before consecration: it should indeed be strongly advised that the application be made before Mass; nevertheless an application made in the Mass itself is valid, provided it is made before consecration: for the sacrifice produces the effect intended by the minister when it is completed; but the sacrifice is essentially completed through consecration.

Those who are of this opinion, that the sacrifice before communion is not yet essentially completed, consequently teach that an application avails which is made before holy communion; but since this opinion has scarcely any probability, applications made after the second consecration are very doubtful, not to say invalid. An application made between the two consecrations is valid according to the opinion of many: for since, according to the opinion which is hardly not certain, the sacrifice is completed only by the consecration of the chalice, its fruits can still be applied before the second consecration.

3. That it be determined explicitly or implicitly to a certain person or to a certain end: for it belongs to the priest to apply the fruit of the Mass, which God does not confer except according to the intention of the celebrant. Hence, if the priest has determined no end or no person, there is no reason why the fruit of the Mass should be applied to one rather than to another, and therefore it is applied to no one. Yet it is not required that the priest himself know or explicitly determine the person or end, but it wholly suffices that another do this and that the priest celebrate according to this intention explicitly determined by another.

a. Therefore these applications are valid: according to the intention of the superior; for him who first gave the stipend; according to the intention of the giver or petitioner; according to the intention noted in the booklet; according to the order in which the stipends were given; for him whom the foundation requires; for him for whom I am bound to apply; for the greatest sinner; for the soul most abandoned; for the soul which is nearest to redemption, etc. In all these cases, objectively or before God, who distributes the fruits of the Mass, there is a true and sufficient determination of the application. But he who from ten intentions offered to him should apply according to one of the ten, determining none, would not make a valid application. He, however, who should apply for all ten collectively would both apply validly and, if he had accepted ten stipends, would satisfy his obligation: for in individual Masses each of the petitioners would receive a tenth part, and when the tenth sacred action had been celebrated, each would have received his whole fruit.

b. It is asked whether an application according to the mind of the Blessed Virgin Mary is valid. In order that the application be valid, the priest himself must apply the fruit of the Mass and must determine, at least implicitly, the person or end to which he intends to apply. Therefore this application is not valid: I offer for him to whom God wills to give the fruits; for him to whom God applies or wills to apply, because the priest himself does not determine the person. But this is valid: I apply for him for whom God wills me to apply, because the priest himself determines the person, namely the one for whom, according to the good pleasure of God, he must apply; just as an application is valid for him for whom a superior wills it to be applied, provided the superior has a determinate will. But God always has a determinate will: for He always wills that it be applied for him for whom it is more pleasing to Him. Now to apply according to the mind of the Blessed Virgin signifies to apply for him for whom the Blessed Virgin wills it to be applied; therefore this application is valid, because the priest himself determines the person to whom the fruits of the sacrifice ought to come, namely to him to whom it is more pleasing to the Blessed Virgin that they come.¹

¹ Cf. Pasqualigo, De sacrificio novae legis, I, q. 169; Suarez, De sacramentis, disp. 43, sect. 6.

178. Whether the fruits of the Mass can be divided. It is certain that the diverse fruits of the Mass can be divided and separated from one another. For sometimes it happens that the fruits of the Mass are separated, without the celebrant willing and intending it. If, for example, the sacred action is offered for one who is in the state of mortal sin, the impetratory and propitiatory fruit indeed will come to him, but not the satisfactory. But even by the will of the celebrant the fruits of the Mass are validly, and sometimes also licitly, divided, as if the impetratory fruit alone is applied to one, but the satisfactory to another, or conversely. Indeed the same fruit is divided among several if the same sacrifice of the Mass is applied for several.

Concerning this matter the following rules can be established:

a. He who is bound from justice to apply the Mass for an accepted stipend cannot licitly divide the fruits of the Mass, but must apply to the one giving the stipend the whole fruit of the sacrifice of which he is capable.

b. Even in Masses for the dead which must be celebrated because of an accepted stipend, the whole fruit, both satisfactory and impetratory, must be applied to them; nor is it licit in Masses for the dead owed from justice to apply the impetratory fruit either to himself or to another. It is indeed not established in what way the sacrifice profits the souls of the dead insofar as it is impetratory, but it is certain that the dead can be aided by the impetratory fruit (n. 175); and likewise it is certain that those who give a stipend for the dead have the right that the dead be aided from the Mass in every way in which they can be aided.

179. Particular questions which are of some importance for the practice of celebrants.

1. Which intention avails, if the priest has made two diverse intentions. It must be answered that the first avails, unless by the subsequent one it must be judged revoked. Therefore: a. if he made the first intention absolutely, so that he willed it to avail, even if, forgetful of it, he formed another, certainly the former avails; b. if, mindful of the former, he made another, certainly the later avails; c. if, forgetful of the former, he made another, the predominant intention avails; but that is judged to be predominant which he would have made if he had remembered the former. But if the intentions are equal, the later avails, since this one is actual, whereas the former is only habitual.¹

Because it will often be doubtful which intention availed, in practice it suffices that the priest at another time intend to apply the Mass to him for whom he has not yet applied it: for one or the other was certainly valid.

2. Whether an application is valid for him who will be the first to give a stipend. To apply a Mass for him who afterward will be the first to give a stipend is illicit, nor is it licit to retain a stipend later given for a Mass previously applied.² And indeed a Mass so applied is only probably valid: for although the intention is determinate in the knowledge of God, nevertheless the sacraments must be administered in a human manner according to human determination. Often an application of this sort will certainly be invalid: for it will often happen that a Mass is said for a cause which does not yet exist (e.g., for a sick person who is still healthy); wherefore the fruit of the Mass would have to be suspended, which cannot be done.

If a priest foresees that Masses will be requested, e.g., for some deceased person, he can at once offer them and afterward accept a stipend for those offered: for the application is valid and licit, as made for a determinate person.

3. Whether an application made for a living person who is believed dead is valid, if it ought to have been applied for him as dead. If the contract is interpreted according to the rigor of law, one so applying does not satisfy, because the end which the one giving the stipend intends is not obtained, namely, by the sacrifice of the Mass, to destroy punishments still to be paid after death. Yet because a living person receives a richer and more certain fruit from the sacrifice of the Mass than a dead person, and because the punishments of purgatory, on account of the sacrifice of the Mass which is applied to him while living, can become shorter and milder, it is not improbably supposed that he who gave the stipend does not wish to urge his right exactly to the line.

If a Mass to be paid is handed over to someone for a deceased male, but he, through error, applies the fruit of the Mass to a deceased female, he has satisfied the intention of the petitioner. For in reality he has two intentions: one general, of applying according to the intention of the petitioner; the other particular, of applying for a deceased male. Now the first intention is predominant, and therefore the second is judged invalid. It comes to the same thing if it is said that the error was accidental, which could not vitiate the substantial act or intention of applying according to the intention of the petitioner.

4. How the application must be determined when stipends are given by many unknown persons, as often happens in pious pilgrimages. The priest can celebrate according to the intention of the giver, because the celebrant has at least the implicit intention of applying to individuals according to the order of time in which they gave the stipends: for he who is prior in time is stronger in right; and thus the application is sufficiently determined.

This holds not only in the case in which the same priest is going to satisfy all the obligations, but also in the case in which several priests receive intentions from a box placed in a church for collecting alms of Masses, or from a heap of stipends collected by a sacristan from various persons; for the celebrant satisfies the obligation if he applies according to the intention of the giver as many times as he has accepted stipends of Masses. For the distributor is judged to have the same implicit intention of handing over stipends according to the order of time in which they had been contributed. The celebrant can also apply the individual Masses to all those who gave stipends, according to the proportion of the stipend; for once the owed number of Masses has been celebrated, individuals have received what was owed to them.³

Question Fourth. On the Obligation of Celebrating

The obligation of celebrating or of applying the fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass can arise from a sixfold title: a. from priesthood; b. from office; c. from stipend; d. from benefice; e. from obedience; f. from promise.

1. Obligation by Reason of Priesthood

¹ Cf. Lugo, De sacram. in gen., disp. 8, n. 121 s.

² Cn. 825, 1. Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 222.

³ The Sacred Penitentiary declared on 7 Dec. 1892 that by this manner of acting satisfaction is made to the obligation of applying Masses for a stipend, provided that the Masses are completed within the time defined by ecclesiastical practice, and that Masses which are offered for a certain day or for an urgent cause are not delayed.

180. 1. Every priest is bound by divine law to celebrate sometimes, unless he is legitimately excused.

Most authors indeed agree in asserting a grave obligation of celebrating sometimes;¹ but not all derive this obligation from the same source. For many affirm that a divine precept of celebrating sometimes has been imposed on all priests, which they prove thus: a. The words of Christ: do this in commemoration of Me, contain a true precept gravely obliging; but this precept does not refer to the priestly order universally, nor to pastors alone, but to the apostles as they are priests, and therefore to all future priests. - But in those words of the Lord there does not seem to be contained a precept of sacrificing imposed on individuals separately, but on individuals taken collectively, i.e., it is prescribed to them that they take care lest the offering of the sacrifice ever be lacking in the Church. b. A priest who neglects to celebrate does not use the grace given to him and frustrates the power handed over to him in ordination; but a grave disorder is contained in this if it happens for a long time: for the sacrifice of the Mass exhibits to God due worship and brings immense utility to men. - But from the power of sacrificing conferred on individual priests, one could infer an obligation of using it also, if it could be demonstrated that the offering of the sacrifice by individuals is necessary; but that the offering of individuals is necessary cannot be demonstrated.

But those who deny that a strict precept and grave obligation are demonstrated by these arguments² concede at least this: that a priest who abstains from celebration for a whole year without an excusing cause (excessive scrupulosity) sins gravely by reason of scandal; for a prolonged omission of the sacrifice of the Mass is regarded by the faithful as a sign of a bad conscience, of depraved life, and of a certain contempt.

2. But how often a priest is bound to celebrate neither divine nor ecclesiastical law determines; authors, however, commonly teach that to avoid grave sin it suffices that he celebrate three or four times in the year on the more solemn feasts, indeed on any days whatever, provided that between them there is an interval suited to avoiding scandal, i.e., provided that celebration is not delayed beyond six months.

Therefore two things are required to avoid grave sin: a. that each year celebration be made three or four times; b. that celebration not be delayed beyond six months. These points indeed are well confirmed by ecclesiastical law: "He who without a just cause has not celebrated three or four times in the year sins mortally and can be punished by the bishop."³

3. A priest who can celebrate daily and neglects this without a reasonable cause, where the custom of celebrating daily is in force, cannot be excused from venial sin; but he does not sin if from a reasonable motive, e.g., of greater preparation, humility, or real inconvenience, he sometimes abstains from celebration.⁴

2. Obligation by Reason of Office

¹ Several times a year, cn. 805 has.

² Lugo, disp. 20, n. 2 ss.; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, n. 1905.

³ S. C. C., in the month of December 1669.

⁴ St. Alphonsus, n. 559.

181. On the obligation itself. 1. By a divine precept obliging under grave sin, all those upon whom a pastoral office is incumbent are bound not only to celebrate on certain days, but also to apply the sacrifice for the people committed to them. This obligation indeed is of justice, since pastors are bound to it, as to the other pastoral offices, from a quasi-contract.

a. The obligation of offering the sacrifice for the people is contained in the pastoral office itself: Every pontiff is appointed for men in those things which pertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.¹ Since the pastoral office in general is of divine institution, the obligation of applying for the people is of divine law. Wherefore the Council of Trent says that by divine precept it has been commanded to pastors to offer sacrifice for their sheep;² and indeed for bishops by absolute divine law, because the episcopate is of divine institution, but for pastors by hypothetical divine law (if and as long as the Church has enjoined this upon them), because the parochial office is of ecclesiastical institution.

b. Therefore by this law are bound diocesan bishops, abbots having jurisdiction over clergy and people with a separated territory, pastors, whether they are secular or regular, and indeed after they have taken possession of the see, capitular vicars when the see is vacant, in mission places vicars and apostolic prefects and quasi-pastors who preside over quasi-parishes, i.e., over parts of a vicariate or apostolic prefecture, then also vicars of pastors, who either administer a vacant parish or hold the place of an absent pastor. But regular prelates, titular bishops, and apostolic administrators are not bound by this law, nor are the cooperators or chaplains of pastors.³

c. Although regular prelates are not bound by strict law to apply the sacrifice of the Mass for their subjects, nevertheless, because pastoral care over their subjects has truly been committed to them by the Church, it is most fitting that they too offer the sacrifice of the Mass for their subjects. How often and when they do this is left to their judgment. If they celebrate Mass for their subjects several times during their office, they certainly satisfy this qualified obligation.

d. Since the pastor must offer the sacrifice of the Mass for his sheep - for the people committed to him - but the deceased faithful do not belong to "his sheep," to "the people committed to him," he is bound to apply only for the living and in reality applies only for them, unless he explicitly extends the intention also to deceased parishioners. But the application to be extended to the dead is only conditional, insofar as it can be done without prejudice to the living, because the parishioners themselves, from the will of the Church, have a right to the entire ministerial fruit of the sacrifice.

2. How often pastors of souls must offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the people the Church has determined, namely on all Sundays and feasts of precept, even suppressed ones; and this indeed even if they do not enjoy suitable revenues and even if immemorial custom stands in the way.⁴

a. Feast days on which it must be applied for the people: 1. of the Nativity of the Lord; 2. of the Circumcision; 3. of the Epiphany; 4. of the Resurrection with the two following weekdays; 5. of the Ascension; 6. of Pentecost with the two following weekdays; 7. of the Most Holy Trinity; 8. of the Body of Christ; 9. of the Finding of the Holy Cross; 10. of the Purification; 11. of the Annunciation; 12. of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 13. of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 14. of the Dedication of St. Michael; 15. of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist; 16. of Saints Peter and Paul; 17. of St. Andrew; 18. of St. James; 19. of St. John; 20. of St. Thomas; 21. of Saints Philip and James; 22. of St. Bartholomew; 23. of St. Matthew; 24. of Saints Simon and Jude; 25. of St. Matthias; 26. of St. Stephen Protomartyr; 27. of the Holy Innocents; 28. of St. Lawrence; 29. of St. Sylvester; 30. of St. Joseph (19 March); 31. of St. Anne, Mother; 32. of All Saints; 33. of the patron of the kingdom; 34. of the patron of the place; 35. of the Immaculate Conception.

Apostolic vicars and prefects, and likewise quasi-pastors, are bound to apply more rarely than the rest, namely: on the solemnities of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, Saints Peter and Paul, and All Saints.⁵

b. If a feast day falls on a Sunday, the pastor satisfies the obligation by one Mass; if the feast is so transferred that on the day to which it is transferred not only the office is said with the Mass of the transferred feast, but the obligations of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile work also are observed, the Mass for the people must be applied on the day to which; otherwise, on the day from which.⁶

c. A pastor who is placed over two parishes equally principally united, or who besides his own has undertaken to administer another or others, must apply only one Mass. The same holds of a bishop.⁷

d. The grave obligation refers to the application itself; but the adjuncts of the application (person, place, day) do not oblige under grave sin; therefore by omitting them grave sin is not committed, unless they are often and almost by custom violated.

¹ Hebr. 5:1.

² Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 1 and c. 14, De ref.; S. C. C., 10 May 1692. Cf. Const. Nuper of Innocent XII; Encyclical Amantissimi Redemptoris of Pius IX, 3 May 1858; In suprema of Leo XIII, 10 June 1882; Cn. 466.

³ Cn. 339 (for bishops), 323 (for abbots or prelates nullius), 466 (for pastors), 440 (for capitular vicar), 306 (for vicar or apostolic prefect), 466 (for quasi-pastors).

⁴ Benedict XIV, const. Cum semper, 19 Aug. 1744; S. C. C., 25 Sept. 1847.

⁵ Cn. 306 and 466.

⁶ Cn. 339, 3.

⁷ Cn. 339, 2; 406, 2.

182. What kind the obligation is. The obligation of applying for the people is:

a. Real, so that a pastor who, impeded by a just cause, cannot apply himself, is bound to satisfy the obligation through another or on another day.

b. Personal, so that he himself must apply, unless he is legitimately impeded.¹ But a legitimate impediment is infirmity, the obligation of celebrating conventual Mass if the pastor is at the same time a canon, or something else which by prudent judgment is judged truly grave.

A grave cause which excuses a pastor from this obligation, according to the declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, is not: alpha. contrary custom; beta. funerals to be celebrated; gamma. a Mass to be said for spouses; delta. a Mass founded for a certain day, which falls on a feast day of precept; epsilon. the persuasion of the faithful, who think that the parochial Mass is always applied for themselves and therefore willingly gather to hear it.

c. Local, i.e., the Mass for the people must be said in the parish church, so that the people can be present at it; nevertheless, if the pastor is legitimately absent, at his pleasure either he himself in the place where he is staying, or another for him in the parish church, can apply.²

d. Affixed to a determinate day, so that it is not licit to transfer the application without necessity to another day, unless it has been granted by special indult.³ But it is not required that the Mass which is applied for the people be a solemn Mass or the parochial Mass itself; the obligation can be satisfied by a private Mass.

To several dioceses, e.g., Metz, there has been conceded the faculty of transferring the application for the people to another following day, if on suppressed feasts there occurs the celebration of a marriage or of one funeral Mass which cannot be anticipated or transferred.⁴ To poor curates it is conceded that, if on that day a rich stipend is offered, a Mass according to the intention of the petitioner can be said, with the application for the people transferred to another day.⁵ To pastors of those dioceses in which on suppressed feast days it is licit by apostolic indult to apply Mass not for the people, but according to the mind of the bishop, it is permitted that they satisfy their obligation not on the very day on which they are bound, nor by themselves, but through another priest.⁶

3. Obligation by Reason of Stipend

¹ S. C. R., 20 Dec. 1864, n. 3128. But the reason why a pastor can fulfill other pastoral duties through another, but must himself apply for the people, is this: because the priestly office of mediator, which is exercised by offering sacrifice, is a personal office. Cf. Pasqualigo, De sacrif. miss., q. 855, n. 7.

² S. C. C., 14 Dec. 1872; Cn. 466, 5.

³ Pius IX, const. Amantissimi Redemptoris, 3 May 1858.

⁴ S. C. C., 3 Sept. 1903.

⁵ Benedict XIV, const. Cum semper, 19 Aug. 1744.

⁶ S. C. C., 16 Dec. 1914.

183. On the stipend itself. It is licit to require and receive a just stipend for the application of a Mass, not as the price of the sacrifice or of the fruit applied, which would be a most grave sin of simony, but for honest support. This is established from the custom universally received in the Church. And indeed, he who is occupied for another in spiritual ministry by divine law requires temporal support from him.²

Mass stipends draw their origin from the offerings of the faithful.³

a. In the primitive Church, during the solemnities of Masses, the faithful gave their offerings (bread and wine) at the altar. From these was chosen what was necessary for consecration (and communion of the faithful); what remained after consecration went partly to the clerics and partly was distributed to the poor. For those who had offered the offerings (in the beginning all present were such), the sacrifice of the Mass was offered.

b. Gradually the offerings of bread and wine ceased, and in their place the faithful offered coins, not however all as before, but only some. When coins were now being offered, it seemed that the very thing which it was licit to offer during Mass could also be offered before or after Mass. Finally, those who offered coins to the priest outside Mass asked that the sacrifice of the Mass itself be offered specially for them.

c. From the seventh century onward it seems to have happened that coins were offered to the priest outside Mass by those who asked that a Mass be celebrated. At the same time the custom was introduced of sacrificing for particular faithful and according to their special intention. Since the offerings from which the stipend of the Mass arose at first had the character of alms offered to the clerics and the poor, the stipend is sometimes called an alms even in our time.⁴

¹ Link, Messstipendien (Regensburg, Manz, 1901).

² Matt. 10:10; 1 Cor. 9:13. Cf. De praeceptis, 12th ed., n. 198; Cn. 824.

³ Cf. Link, p. 22 ff.; Benedict XIV, De missae sacrificio, l. 3, c. 21, n. 1-5; Gasparri, I, n. 535 s.

⁴ S. C. C., 21 June 1625; 5 July 1664; Benedict XIV, Quanta cura, 30 June 1741.

184. On the obligation arising from a stipend. 1. From an accepted stipend there arises a grave obligation of justice of offering the Mass according to the intention of him who gave the stipend: for there intervenes between the priest and him who gives the stipend an onerous contract, which must be observed from justice. Hence the priest who, having accepted a stipend, does not apply the Mass according to the intention of the one giving the stipend, gravely wounds justice and is bound to restitution of the stipend.¹

a. Recent theologians teach as altogether certain by common consent that he sins gravely who fails to celebrate even one sacred action owed from a stipend, although others, because of the contrary opinion of certain older authors, teach that he sins gravely only more probably, unless the quantity of the stipend is grave. These authors falsely measured the quantity of the sin from the quantity of the stipend. The true reason why this sin is grave must be taken not from the quantity of the stipend (unless it was given by a poor person), nor from the gravity of the spiritual loss which he who gave the stipend suffers (unless he asked in grave necessity), but from the will of the Church manifested by so many decrees, which obliges the priest under grave sin, because of the great importance of the matter, to fulfill this contract. But the priest who has not satisfied his obligation is not bound under grave sin to restitution of the stipend, unless the stipend constitutes a relatively grave sum.

b. The contract which is made between him who gives the stipend and him who accepts the stipend cannot be called a contract of exchange or sale, by which the labor intrinsically joined with celebration is exchanged for the stipend; but with most authors it must be called the unnamed contract, I give that you may do, i.e., I give a stipend for support, that you may apply for me the sacrifice of the Mass.² Hence it follows that once this contract has been entered, ownership of the stipend passes to the priest, together with the obligation of justice of applying the sacrifice of the Mass according to the intention of the giver, which obligation he can satisfy either by himself or through another. Therefore, if the priest, even without fault, by a fortuitous event has lost the stipend received, the obligation of applying does not cease, since the thing perishes for its owner.³

2. Those adjuncts also must be observed from justice which are rightly asked by him who gives the stipend, namely of celebrating at a determinate time and place and a determinate quality of Mass, provided the one accepting the stipend has obligated himself to observe these things. Wherefore a grave defect in this matter must be supplied, if it cannot be done otherwise, by another Mass duly celebrated according to the will of the one giving the stipend.⁴

a. If the time at which the Mass is to be said has been determined either expressly or tacitly, namely by the very quality of the intention (e.g., for a dying person, for a happy childbirth, for the happy outcome of a grave matter), it must be applied at the agreed time.

b. If, in a privileged altar, celebration is to be made from an accepted stipend for a deceased person, the priest who enjoys a personal privilege of the altar satisfies the obligation when celebrating at any altar; but he does not satisfy by applying another plenary indulgence, because the deceased person does not gain this so certainly.⁵

He who, through an error committed in good faith, has not satisfied this obligation, e.g., because without a personal privilege he celebrated at another altar, not privileged, is not indeed bound to restore the stipend, but is bound in compensation to apply another plenary indulgence to the same deceased person.⁶

c. He who by reason of a stipend or foundation is bound to say a votive Mass does not satisfy the obligation by applying the Mass of the day, unless a legitimate impediment excuses. Yet since this defect affects not the substance but only the quality of the Mass, it does not exceed venial sin. But he satisfies the obligation of applying for the dead by saying a Mass of a saint, and likewise he satisfies the obligation of applying for the living by saying a Requiem Mass; nevertheless it is in no way fitting that this be done, unless a just cause excuses. For although by reason of the sacrifice there is no difference between one Mass and another, nevertheless by reason of the prayers which occur in the Mass, one profits the dead more than the other.

If, when a stipend has been offered, a Mass is asked in honor of some mystery, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of a saint, the obligation is satisfied by this, that the Mass of the current day is applied according to the intention of the one giving the stipend, unless a votive Mass is expressly asked. But it is more advisable that, insofar as it can be done, satisfaction be made to the intention of the one giving the stipend by a votive Mass.⁷

3. It is not licit to accept several stipends for one sacred action, but absolutely as many Masses must be celebrated as have been asked by reason of the stipend given and accepted, even if the stipends are small.⁸

a. That it is not licit to accept several stipends for a single Mass is manifest in the opinion of those who hold that the fruit of the sacrifice is finite; but neither do those who think the fruit of the sacrifice is infinite concede that several stipends are to be accepted for one Mass, both because the title for accepting them is lacking, since daily support is one, and because it has been prohibited by the Church.⁹

b. A stipend can be accepted for one Mass which is celebrated on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, and for the individual Masses which are celebrated on the feast of the Nativity of the Lord. Likewise, for an extraordinary burden and labor, e.g., for a Mass to be celebrated with chant, in a distant place, at a late hour, for several continuous days, etc., it is licit to require a fee greater than the customary one; but in no way is this licit for a spiritual advantage, e.g., for celebration at a privileged altar, before a miraculous image, etc.

c. It is licit to accept a stipend for the application of a Mass which is celebrated for spouses, if the spouses themselves have not given a stipend for the application of the Mass.¹⁰ The same is licit for the application of a funeral Mass, if a stipend has not been given so that it be applied for the deceased person whose funeral is being held:¹¹ for in both cases only the quality of the Mass, not its application, is prescribed by the Church.

d. Nevertheless it is not licit to accept one stipend for celebration alone and another for application, unless it is certainly established that the stipend was offered for celebration without application, cn. 825, 4.

¹ S. C. C., 21 June 1625; 5 July 1664; Benedict XIV, Quanta cura, 30 June 1741.

² Cf. De praeceptis, 12th ed., n. 198.

³ Cn. 829.

⁴ Cn. 833.

⁵ S. C. Indlg., 2 May 1852.

⁶ S. C. Indlg., 22 Feb. 1847. By this decree the Congregation concedes to priests who were bound to apply the indulgence of a privileged altar, and who, erring in good faith, did not gain it, that compensation be made by the application of another plenary indulgence, as the same Congregation declares, 24 July 1885. Cf. Beringer-Hilgers, Die Ablasse, 14th ed. (Paderborn, Schoningh, 1915), I, 568.

⁷ S. C. R., 13 June 1899, n. 4031.

⁸ Cn. 828.

⁹ This proposition (10) was condemned by Alexander VII: It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice.

¹⁰ Holy Office, 1 Sept. 1841.

¹¹ S. C. C., 27 Apr. 1895.

185. On the quantity of the stipend. 1. A priest can licitly accept for a Mass what the liberality of the faithful freely and spontaneously offers.¹ But it is not licit to require anything except the stipend which is determined either by the law of the bishop or, in its absence, by the custom of the place. "If a priest about to celebrate requires more beyond the alms taxed by the bishop, he not only offends against the law of the Church, but also wounds commutative justice";² nevertheless he does not commit the sin of simony.³

a. If a benefactor has given stipends for Masses, but has not determined the number of Masses, the number must be computed according to the stipend of the place in which the offerer was staying, unless another intention of the same can be presumed (cn. 830), as if perhaps at other times he was accustomed to give a richer stipend.

b. If someone by testament or legacy has prescribed Masses to be celebrated, but has not determined the quantity of the stipend, either recourse must be had to the bishop, so that he may prescribe a suitable stipend, or the stipend must be fixed according to the custom of the place.

2. The bishop can prohibit priests from admitting an alms smaller than the customary tax. But a prohibition of this sort, wherever it exists, must not be understood in such a way that, if a reason of mercy or charity demands it, it is not licit to admit a smaller stipend, provided it is declared that this is done under the title of alms. But he cannot prohibit the faithful from giving an alms greater than the customary one, because the bishop cannot prohibit works of piety.

By common law, indeed, any priest can licitly apply a Mass for an alms below the diocesan tax. But if there exists an episcopal prohibition that alms for Masses below the diocesan tax be received, not only secular clerics, but also regulars, are subject to the statute of the bishop.⁴

¹ S. C. de prop. fid., 30 July 1877.

² Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 5, c. 9, n. 2.

³ Cf. De praeceptis, 12th ed., n. 198.

⁴ Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 22, decree Quanta cura De sacrif. missae; Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 5, c. 9, n. 2; Cn. 832.

186. On manual Masses to be duly satisfied. 1. In order that the burdens of Masses and manual Masses owed from a stipend be duly satisfied, and that all commerce concerning Mass stipends be avoided, several decrees have been issued by the Holy See, the principal of which are these:

a. S. C. C. under Urban VIII, 21 June 1625, Cum saepe.

b. S. C. C. under Innocent XII, 23 Nov. 1697, Nuper.

c. Constitution of Benedict XIV, 30 June 1741, Quanta cura.

d. S. C. C., 9 Sept. 1874.

e. S. C. C., 24 Apr. 1875.

f. S. C. C., 25 May 1893, Vigilanti.

g. S. C. C., 28 Aug. 1897.

h. S. C. C., 11 May 1904, Ut debita.

i. S. C. C., 22 May 1907.

With the decree Ut debita the dispositions of the new Code, cn. 837-844, almost agree.

Very many dispositions which in the course of time were issued by the Holy See concerning manual Masses are renewed, confirmed, and more accurately determined by the decree Ut debita. According to the mind of the legislator, this decree obliges those to whom it pertains of itself under grave sin, therefore in grave matter under grave sin, in light matter under light sin (n. 4).¹ The summary of this decree is contained in the following points, with those things noted which are modified in the new Code:

2. Three kinds of Masses are distinguished:

a. Manual Masses, whose stipends are offered by the faithful either from their own devotion, as it were into the hand, or from an obligation even perpetual made by a testator to his own heirs.

To manual Masses also belong those which a family by force of inheritance, even in perpetuity, must see celebrated, and which permanently adhere to a church, monastery, confraternity, or pious places, but are not founded, so that they can be applied by any priest.²

b. Masses after the manner of manual Masses, which are founded, but cannot be applied in their proper place or by those who from the foundation ought to satisfy them, and therefore by law or by indult of the Holy See must be handed over to other priests so that they may be celebrated.

c. Founded Masses, whose stipends are received from the revenues of foundations.³

3. Holy Mother Church is very solicitous that Masses which are requested by the faithful with a stipend offered are certainly and duly satisfied; to obtain this end she prescribes several precautions.

a. Rectors of churches and of other pious places, whether secular or religious, in which stipends of Masses are customarily received, should have a special book in which they accurately note the number of Masses received, the intention, the stipend, and the celebration. Ordinaries are bound to inspect these books at least every year, either by themselves or through others.

b. Ordinaries of places and religious superiors who commit Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or to others should quickly enter the Masses accepted with their stipends in a book and should see to it, as far as they can, that they are celebrated as soon as possible.

c. All priests, whether secular or religious, must carefully note what intentions they have received and which they have satisfied.

d. The right and duty of watching that the burdens of Masses are fulfilled pertains to the local ordinary, and in the churches of religious to their superiors.⁴

¹ The whole decree consists of a preface and 15 numbers, to which the numbers added here in the text within parentheses refer.

² S. C. C., 19 Dec. 1904.

³ Cn. 826.

⁴ Cn. 842 ss.

187. On the time suitable for celebration.¹ 1. If the time of celebration has been determined by the offerer either explicitly or implicitly, the priest accepting the Masses is bound to celebrate them at the determined time.

a. The time is determined implicitly by this, that the end of the application is indicated, e.g., for a dying person, for a happy childbirth, for new communicants, for the happy outcome of some grave matter, etc.

b. A priest sins gravely if he does not celebrate within the time suited by reason of the end; and when that time has passed, he is bound to restore the stipend, even if he afterward celebrates, namely when the end for which he ought to have celebrated can no longer be obtained.

2. If the time has been determined by the offerer neither explicitly nor implicitly, the Masses must be celebrated within a moderate time according to the greater or lesser number: if one is to be celebrated, within a month; a hundred Masses requested by the same person within a semester; and another longer or shorter space of time more or less according to the greater or lesser number of Masses. According to the judgment of authors, this more exact determination can be made: if 20 Masses are offered by one and the same person without determination of time, they must be satisfied within two months; if 40, within three months; if 60, within four months; if 80, within five months; if 100, within six months, and so on; if 200, within a year, unless the offerer either asks that the celebration be made within a shorter time, or grants a longer time for it (n. 9).

a. Therefore if someone, with a stipend offered, asks for a Mass, it must be applied within a month; if twenty different persons ask the same priest for a Mass, likewise all must be applied within a month. Indeed, if in some solemnity five hundred different persons offer a stipend for one Mass, of themselves they must be applied within a month.² But if the same person asks the same priest for twenty Masses, it suffices if they are applied within two months.

b. For priests who receive Mass stipends not from the faithful but from the ordinary, by concession of the Holy See the time within which the Masses must be applied begins from the day on which they received the stipends from the ordinary, not from the day on which they were offered by the faithful.³

c. This determination of time must be taken not scrupulously and mathematically, but in a human and moral manner. Nevertheless, that which up to now was handed down by authors, namely that Masses for one recently deceased must be applied within a month, but Masses offered for other intentions within two months, unless they are asked for an urgent cause, can no longer safely be taught. Nor must a distinction any longer be made between Masses to be applied for the dead and Masses to be applied for the living; but the time suitable for application is the same in either case.

d. The precept applies to all Masses which by this decree are called manual. Therefore if someone accepts from a pastor Masses founded in his church to be celebrated, they must be celebrated within the time determined above: for for him who accepts them they are Masses after the manner of manual Masses, although the pastor, since they are founded, could have applied them within the year.

e. Therefore he who without just cause notably defers Masses beyond the prescribed time sins gravely; nevertheless he is not bound to restitution of the stipend, because afterward he can still satisfy the obligation of celebrating. A delay is judged notable if a Mass which was to be celebrated within a determined time is deferred for a month beyond the prescribed time.

3. If the offerer has expressly left the time to the judgment of the priest, he can celebrate them at the time which pleases him more; nevertheless, within a year counted from the time at which he accepted them.

¹ Cf. cn. 834 s.

² S. C. C., 27 Feb. 1905.

³ S. C. C., 27 Feb. 1905.

188. 4. Therefore:

a. It is licit for no one to seek or accept more Masses than he can probably celebrate within the stated time, either by himself or through his subjects, if there is question of an ordinary or regular prelate (n. 1). To these must also be reckoned pastors whose chaplains must celebrate according to their intention.

alpha. Nothing prevents a priest who has already accepted stipends from one or another person from accepting several other Masses from other offerers, provided they can be applied within a suitable time. If, for example, 40 Masses are offered to someone by one and the same person, it suffices if he satisfies them within three months; meanwhile he can also satisfy several other obligations owed either from office or from other stipends.

beta. A priest indeed is not licitly able to accept for himself Masses which he cannot apply within the due time; nevertheless he can accept them for others, i.e., he can declare himself ready to the one offering the stipends to see to it, if it pleases him, that they be applied by another priest.

b. It is licit for no one to accept more Masses than he can probably apply within a year from the day of the obligation undertaken, unless someone spontaneously gives a greater number (n. 3).

The sense of this number will be clear from an example. If to a priest who within the year must celebrate 150 Masses from a benefice, 300 stipends are offered by the same donor, he cannot accept more than 200, because besides those owed from the benefice he cannot apply more within the year. Yet if someone spontaneously gives 500 Masses to a priest, by that very fact he does not require that they be applied within the year, but consents that the application of several be deferred beyond the year.

5. All who are obligated to fulfill burdens of Masses must, at the end of the year, hand over to their proper ordinaries the Masses which they have not yet satisfied, unless there is question of a smaller number of Masses (n. 4).

a. All, whether clerics or laypeople, but especially beneficiaries and administrators of pious causes. Therefore heirs who by force of testament or legacy are bound to see to it that Masses are said, during the course of the year can hand them over to any priest to be celebrated; but if they neglect this, after the year they lose the right of seeing to the celebration by themselves, and they are bound to send them to the ordinary.

b. At the end of the year. If there is question of founded Masses or Masses attached to some benefice, the obligation begins from the end of that year within which the Masses ought to have been applied; if there is question of manual Masses of a larger number, the obligation begins after a year from the day of the obligation undertaken.

c. A smaller number: for the priest licitly retains as many Masses as he can apply within the due time. In the same way he licitly retains those whose celebration, by the will of the donors, can be deferred beyond the year.

d. The proper ordinaries of regulars are regular prelates (generals, provincials, local superiors), to whom regulars must hand over at the end of the year the Masses which they have not yet satisfied.¹

6. In churches (e.g., of pious pilgrimages) in which more Masses are requested than can be celebrated there within the due time, the faithful should be advised by a notice placed in an open place that the requested Masses will be celebrated either there, when it can conveniently be done, or elsewhere.

¹ S. C. C., 27 Feb. 1905.

189. On handing superfluous Masses to others. 1. He who has superfluous Masses which he himself cannot apply within the time suitable for celebration must assign them either to the ordinary, or to the Holy See, or to another priest, with the prescribed conditions observed (n. 5).

He who hands over Masses with a stipend to the ordinary or to the Holy See is freed from every obligation by the very handing over; he who hands them over to other priests is not freed from the obligation of celebrating until he has obtained testimony of the accepted obligation and of the received stipend.¹

Testimony of the celebration performed is no longer required.

¹ Cn. 839.

190. 2. The prescribed conditions are these:

a. As to the Masses. That the Masses be celebrated in that place (church, altar) and at that time (day, hour), as the will of the founders or offerers requires.

b. As to persons. alpha. Intentions of Masses accepted from the faithful or from pious places can licitly be handed over to priests (whether staying inside or outside the diocese), who celebrate them either by themselves or through their subjects, namely where they are handed over to ordinaries or regular prelates (or pastors), n. 8.¹

It is not licit to give Mass stipends to booksellers and administrators of periodicals, even if they are religious men, nor to sellers of sacred utensils and vestments, however much they are pious and religious institutions, nor to any others, however much they are ecclesiastical men, who ask for Masses not with the intention that they celebrate them either by themselves or through their subjects (n. 8). It is clear that by this there is not prohibited that Mass intentions be given or procured for priests so that from their stipends they may buy books or things of any kind.

beta. The priests to whom Mass intentions are handed over must either be known as above all exception, i.e., such that they provide moral certainty that they will celebrate the accepted Masses (n. 5), or must be commended by testimony of their proper Ordinary.²

gamma. Testimony of the received stipend must be required.

This testimony must be required so that the one handing over Mass stipends to others may know that he is immune from the obligation of celebrating. And indeed, to obtain this end for the internal forum of conscience, it makes no difference whether the testimony is written or oral; indeed even moral certainty obtained from the circumstances of things and persons prudently considered seems sufficient for the forum of conscience.

Note. If there is question of Masses to be sent to churches of the Oriental rite: a. it is not licit to send them: alpha. to laymen who distribute them to priests; nor beta. directly to Oriental presbyters; nor gamma. directly to superiors of congregations of Oriental religious; nor delta. directly to titular bishops or simple patriarchal vicars. But b. they must be sent either alpha. to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith; or beta. to apostolic delegates, signifying at the same time the number of Masses and the sum of stipends which must be handed over to Oriental prelates existing within the scope of the delegation; or gamma. to prelates having ordinary jurisdiction for priests subject to themselves.³

¹ Cn. 838.

² Cn. 838.

³ S. C. de prop. fide, 15 July 1908.

191. 3. As to the stipend. 1. In transmitting manual Masses, the whole stipend must be transmitted, unless the offerer expressly permits something to be retained or it is certain that the excess above the diocesan tax was given in view of the person.¹

To these one may add another case, namely if the one receiving the stipend spontaneously remits part of the offered stipend:² for he is not prohibited from making donations. That the expenses of transmission can be deducted is manifest.

a. He commits a grave sin against religion who retains part of the stipend in grave matter, even if he expends the retained money for pious uses. That partial retention of the stipend is prohibited by the Church under grave sin is manifest from the penalties previously issued against this manner of acting. But it has been doubted whether by this manner of acting one sins against commutative justice with the burden of restitution, or only against religion. Certainly the opinion of those who deny a wound of commutative justice is probable:³ for the arguments by which the affirmative opinion is demonstrated do not prove the matter. They argue thus: alpha. From the condemned proposition: a priest who has accepted Mass stipends cannot satisfy through another, with part of the stipend retained for himself;⁴ but he who does not satisfy his obligation wounds justice. - But nothing requires that the words of the condemned proposition be understood thus: he cannot satisfy his obligation without a wound of justice; since they can conveniently be understood thus: he cannot licitly satisfy his obligation. beta. A priest accepting a stipend indeed acquires ownership of it, but according to the will of the giver; but the will of the giver is that the Mass be celebrated for such a stipend; therefore he who retains part of the stipend acts against the will of the giver, which pertains to the substance of the contract, and therefore acts against justice and is bound to restitution, not indeed to him who gave the stipend, but to the celebrating priest. - But it is in no way established that this is the will of him who gives the stipend, which is clear from these things: he who has accepted a Mass stipend can satisfy the obligation of celebrating through another, even if he gives no stipend, provided the one conferring the stipend has not expressly demanded that the one accepting himself celebrate the Mass. For if another in place of the one accepting the stipend celebrates gratis according to the intention of the giver, no one doubts that he who accepted the stipend has satisfied the obligation.

b. To administrators of churches who give stipends to outside priests celebrating in their churches, it is not licit to retain part of the stipend under this title, that the celebrating priests pay something for necessary expenses, even if the church is poor. Nevertheless, it is licit for rectors of churches to require payment of expenses from priests wishing to celebrate in their churches as a condition that they be permitted to celebrate in the church, especially if the church is poor, or many priests, or the same priests frequently, celebrate there.

c. To an executor of a testament who, for a certain sum of money, must see that a determinate number of Masses is celebrated, it is not licit without injustice to retain part of the sum for himself because he sees to it that Masses are celebrated where the stipends are smaller: for since he never acquired ownership of the stipends, there exists no title by which he could retain part of them.⁵

¹ Cn. 840.

² Benedict XIV, const. Quanta cura, 30 June 1741.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, n. 1017; D'Annibale, III, n. 190, note 17; Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., 231.

⁴ This proposition (9) was condemned by Alexander VII: After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are handed over can satisfy through another, with a lesser stipend given to him and the other part of the stipend retained for himself.

⁵ St. Alphonsus, n. 322.

192. In Masses to the likeness of manual Masses it is sufficient to transmit the stipend of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the excess takes the place of part of the endowment of the benefice or of the pious cause, unless the mind of the founder stands in the way.

a. Therefore, if the foundation was made in such a way that the celebration of Masses is entrusted to a certain priest, it is sufficient to transmit the diocesan tax. But if the foundation was made in such a way that the celebration of Masses is annexed to some church, the pastor who sees to it that they are celebrated by another must give him the whole stipend,¹ except in the case in which the foundations constitute part of the parochial congrua.

b. For funeral or nuptial Masses, whose celebration by law and custom belongs to pastors, a greater tax is usually given; the pastor can retain its excess, if he sees to it that the Mass is celebrated by another. But if the greater stipend is given by reason of chant, of a later hour, etc., the excess must be handed over to the celebrant, who must undergo the extraordinary burden.

c. If to a priest who accompanies a funeral 5 crowns are offered with the burden of celebrating a Mass, or if to a pastor 20 crowns are given with the burden that a triduum be instituted and three Masses celebrated, it is sufficient that to him to whom the Masses to be celebrated are entrusted there be given the diocesan stipend. But if the Mass to be said is entrusted to a priest existing outside the diocese, the stipend of the diocese of the celebrant must be given. If a Mass connected with a benefice is entrusted to another priest, the ordinary stipend of that place in which the Mass is celebrated must be given.²

The decree Ut debita further admonishes two things:

a. The stipend of a Mass cannot licitly be separated from the celebration of the Mass (n. 8).

Since by these words this alone is prohibited, namely that Mass stipends be given to those who accept them for another end, not for this end, that they pay off the Masses either by themselves or through their subjects, it is not prohibited that priests be asked to accept Masses to be celebrated and then donate their stipends to a pious work. - Nor is it prohibited that, from a just cause of necessity, a priest exchange the intention of a Mass with another, while retaining his own stipend, even though the stipends of each are not equal, but one is greater than the other. For in this case one is judged spontaneously and freely to donate the excess to the other. - Nor, finally, is it prohibited that pastors, whose vicars must celebrate according to the intention of the pastor, retain the stipends of Masses for their sustenance.

b. The stipend of a Mass cannot licitly be exchanged into other things, but must be returned in its own species (n. 9).

alpha. Although it is not licit by means of Masses to sell or buy any things whatsoever, nevertheless it is licit for him who asks for a Mass or Masses to hand over to the priest, for Masses to be celebrated or already celebrated, a book or another thing in place of money, provided this is not done habitually nor turns to the support of some commerce (n. 10).

beta. Both from declarations of the Holy See and from indults and privileges granted by the same Holy See either to bishops or to priests, it was licit to exchange the stipends of Masses with another thing, e.g., newspapers, religious sheets, and even, for promoting a pious work, to hand over stipends to others with part of them retained. But now all these things are obrogated and must be held as abrogated (n. 9). - In like manner there has been revoked the indult granted to more celebrated sanctuaries, by force of which from Mass stipends offered by the faithful they could deduct a part, so that provision might be made for the decor and ornament of the sanctuary (n. 11).

¹ S. C. C., 25 July 1874.

² S. Office, 11 May 1904, Ut debita, n. 15.

193. On the reduction of Masses. 1. From a just cause the Church is accustomed to reduce the burdens of Masses or even entirely to extinguish them.

The occasion of reducing the burdens of Masses presents itself especially when, in the course of time, it has happened that the revenues of a foundation no longer suffice for paying off the complete number of Masses. By a reduction of this kind the founders suffer no damage: for the supreme pontiff supplies the satisfactory fruit by this, that from the treasury of the Church he applies the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints for those for whom the sacred offerings would have been offered; but the impetratory fruit produced from the prayer of the Church he supplies by this, that he directs to this end the prayers which are made in the name of the Church.

2. The supreme pontiff has reserved to himself the power of reducing the burdens of Masses, so that a bishop without a special indult of the Holy See cannot validly reduce the number of Masses, unless the founder has granted this power also to the ordinary of the place.¹

a. When, on account of the smallness of a legacy which has not yet been accepted, reduction is necessary, the bishop can, without faculty of the apostolic see, reduce the number of Masses to be celebrated according to the norm of the customary stipend.

b. From the case in which the sum of the foundation is not diminished in itself, but no longer suffices for all the burdens, there must be distinguished the case in which the very sum of the foundation has perished either wholly or in part, but without fault of him who must celebrate the Masses. In the former case the reduction of Masses can be made by the supreme pontiff alone. If in the latter case the sum of the foundation has wholly perished, the obligation of celebrating the Masses ceases; but if it has perished in part, that must be observed which the new Code, cn. 1517, 2, establishes: "If the execution of the burdens imposed has become impossible because of diminished revenues or another cause, with no fault of the administrators, the Ordinary also, after hearing those whose interest is involved and with the will of the founder preserved in the better way in which it can be done, will be able equitably to diminish the same burdens, except the reduction of Masses, which always belongs uniquely to the Holy See." Thus, if the founder determined a certain stipend for individual Masses, the Ordinary can equitably diminish the number of Masses; but if the founder determined the number of Masses, their reduction must be made by the Apostolic See.

¹ S. C. C., 31 Jan. 1625. Cn. 1517, 1.

194. On the condonation of Masses. Under certain conditions the Church is accustomed to condone the burdens of Masses, whether they are founded or manual. The effect of condonation is twofold: of supplying from the treasury of the Church the fruits of omitted sacrifices, so that the petitioners perceive the same fruits which they would have perceived if the Masses had been celebrated, and of remitting the obligation of celebrating them.

a. The supreme pontiff alone can grant condonation, because he alone can supply from the treasury of the Church for Masses not celebrated.

b. Condonation is customarily granted when a priest has not celebrated several Masses which from foundation or from stipend he should have celebrated, and can no longer celebrate them. Condonation is not granted when there are means or revenues by which past omissions can be supplied.

Note. All the works by which Christ the Lord accomplished the redemption of the human race are contained in the treasury of the Church; but the works of redemption were works of adoration, of thanksgiving, of supplication, of placation, and of satisfaction; therefore there are contained in the treasury of the Church adorations, thanksgivings, supplications, placations, and satisfactions of infinite value, which Christ the Lord offered to God the Father for us. - Moreover, since in the treasury of the Church there are the merits of Christ, in the same treasury there are the merits which proceed from the sacrifice of the cross; but the sacrifice of the Mass is the renewal of the sacrifice of the cross; therefore all the effects which the sacrifice of the Mass can produce are contained in the treasury of the Church and in reality are applied from them by the supreme pontiff through condonation according to the intention of those who had asked for the Masses.

4. Obligation by reason of benefice.

195. By benefice is understood a simple benefice or chaplaincy, which imposes on the beneficed cleric the obligation from a pious foundation of celebrating Mass daily or yearly on certain days. These obligations arising from foundations are customarily called "perpetual burdens of Masses." The intention of founders is directed either to this, that a certain number of Masses be celebrated according to their intention, or to this, that Masses be said in a certain place, by which an occasion of hearing Mass may be furnished to the people.

1. The obligation of justice, to which the beneficed cleric is bound to satisfy, refers not only to the Masses themselves to be celebrated in a determinate number, but also to other adjuncts prescribed by the founder, namely to the species of the Mass (read or sung), to the place, to the time, etc., if the founder designated these things for a grave cause.

2. The beneficed cleric is not bound to satisfy the obligation of celebrating himself personally, unless this is required by express or equivalent words. But if he himself must celebrate, the obligation is grave, which nevertheless admits smallness of matter, so that he sins gravely if without an excusing cause he rather often does not celebrate himself.

3. The application of the Masses, where the founder has expressly established nothing concerning it, must be made according to the presumed intention of the founder. And indeed the Masses are rightly presumed to be applied to the soul of the founder when the founder simply imposes the burden of celebrating Masses; but when he prescribes that a certain number of Masses to be celebrated be applied to himself, he is judged to have left the application of the others free.

4. If a beneficed cleric who has the burden of a daily Mass does not have to celebrate himself personally, he can licitly omit none, but must see to it that the Mass be said by another when he himself does not celebrate. But if he himself is personally bound to celebrate daily, he can sometimes from a just cause omit a Mass, and he is not bound to supply it through another.¹ Causes of this kind are:

a. Illness; if, however, the illness is not brief but long lasting, he must celebrate through another, even with a stipend conferred, if there is need.

But a brief illness seems to some to be one which does not exceed fifteen days, to others one which does not exceed a month, to others one which does not exceed two months. Even this last opinion seemed probable to some,² but contrary decrees are present, from which he is bound to supply through another if the illness lasts beyond fifteen days,³ except in the case in which the beneficed cleric on account of illness had become entirely incapable and had nothing from which he might live from elsewhere, and had been ordained to the title of the benefice.⁴

b. Religion; therefore he can, because of a defect of devotion or disposition, and hence for the sake of humility and reverence, omit celebration once in a month.

c. A reasonable impediment; therefore he can omit Mass by reason of a journey or for making exercises; indeed authors permit that sometimes (five or six times in a year) he apply for himself or for his own. But it is not licit, when he celebrates for another, to accept a stipend, because from the foundation he has already received a stipend.

5. A beneficed cleric who must celebrate Mass in a determinate church, at a determinate altar, at a certain hour, sins gravely if he rather often (more than once and again in a month) without a just cause does not observe these dispositions of the founder, provided the founder determined them for a grave cause still enduring, e.g., for the convenience of the people, for the special cult of some saint, etc.

a. In dispositions of the founder of this kind a bishop can dispense for a time from a just cause, but in perpetuity the Holy See alone can dispense.

b. A beneficed cleric who from foundation is bound to celebrate on feast days at a determinate altar or in a determinate church can, on feasts afterward abrogated by the Church, celebrate in another church or at another altar, if the end of the foundation is that an occasion of hearing the sacred rite be furnished to the people.⁵

c. A beneficed cleric who from foundation is bound to apply for the founder on individual feast days is bound to this also on suppressed feasts.⁶

5. Obligation by reason of obedience.

¹ S. C. C., 18 Sept. 1683.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 333.

³ S. C. C., 4 June 1689 and 17 Nov. 1695.

⁴ S. C. C., 14 Apr. 1655.

⁵ S. C. Ep. et Reg., 1 Mar. 1872.

⁶ S. C. Ep. et Reg., 15 Dec. 1836.

196. 1. Both the Council of Trent¹ and the Code of Canon Law² in almost the same words command bishops and religious superiors to take care that priests subject to them offer the most holy sacrifice of the Mass at least on individual Sundays and other feasts of precept; priests subject to them, if anywhere the superiors have given such a precept, are bound to obey.

2. That secular prelates, i.e., the supreme pontiff and the bishop, can of themselves command priests subject to them not only the celebration of Mass but also its application is certain, and the contrary opinion of some rests on a false foundation, namely that the Church cannot command internal acts; nevertheless superiors who are not religious rarely use this power, because priests undergo temporal damage by the fact that they are deprived of the stipend of Masses.

The conventual Mass, (if several must be celebrated, only one) must by ecclesiastical law be applied daily for benefactors in general.³ Religious indeed are not bound by common law, but for the most part by statute of the order, to make this application. The conventual Mass is called the Mass which is to be sung in cathedral and collegiate churches and in churches of regulars of either sex, in which the canonical office is performed in choir; therefore those who are not bound to choir do not have a conventual Mass.

3. Regular superiors, however, are accustomed to command the application of Mass to their subjects under diverse titles: and indeed from justice, where the stipends of Masses are accepted by superiors under this agreement, that they see to it that these are paid off through subjects; or from obedience, where either by force of the dominative power by which they have power over subjects they themselves enjoin the application of Mass, or by force of constitutions they prescribe Masses which are exacted by these for a certain intention.

a. Therefore subject religious priests are bound, whether from justice or from obedience, to apply the sacrifice of the Mass according to the intention prescribed by superiors. If a subject religious acts against the precept of the superior, he indeed validly applies to another intention, yet illicitly; and if he was bound from justice to offer, without doubt he sins gravely; otherwise he sins gravely or lightly or in no way against obedience according as the superior intended to oblige the subjects under grave sin or under light sin or not at all under sin. Constitutions of orders enjoining Masses generally do not oblige under sin.⁴

b. The precept of a superior enjoining the sacrifice of the Mass does not extend beyond the end intended by the superior. Therefore he who from obedience alone, i.e., from the precept of a superior or from statute of the order, is bound to perform the sacred rite, can apply to himself or to others the remaining fruits which do not directly contribute to the prescribed end. Thus, if Mass is exacted for a sick man to obtain his health, the priest can apply the other fruits besides the impetratory fruit; and if Mass is exacted in thanksgiving, he can apply at least the satisfactory fruit at will.

6. Obligation by reason of promise.

¹ Sess. 23, c. 14, De reform.

² Cn. 805.

³ Thus Benedict XIV establishes, const. Cum semper alia, 10 Aug. 1754.

⁴ Cf. S. C. de Relig., 3 May 1914.

197. 1. He who seriously and with the mind of obliging himself promises that he will offer the sacrifice of the Mass for someone, once the promise has been accepted by the other, is ordinarily bound from fidelity to apply the Mass for him. Yet for the most part promises of this kind are not made seriously and with the mind of obliging oneself, but show only a benevolent proposal; wherefore they rarely induce a true obligation. Therefore all things depend on the intention of the one promising.

2. The obligation from fidelity is ordinarily only light, even in a grave matter. Therefore he who truly promised one or several sacred rites to another and omits to apply them does not sin gravely, unless he expressly intended to oblige himself under grave sin, or took upon himself the burden of one who was bound under grave sin to celebrate. But if a true promise has not intervened, the omission of celebration is no sin.

He who is bound to perform the sacred rite from a liberal promise satisfies the obligation if he applies only the promised or requested fruit; but he can reserve the remaining fruits to himself or to another. For a liberal promise must be interpreted so that it is as little burdensome as possible to the one promising. For example, he who promised to one person a sacred rite in thanksgiving for a benefit received, to another for obtaining health, to a third for a deceased friend, satisfies the threefold promise by one sacred rite.¹

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum, III, pr. 8, n. 417, who followed Gobat, Experient. theol., tr. 3, n. 144; Lugo, disp. 19, n. 193.

THE application of a Mass is the intention with which the priest who says it wishes that it should accrue to the benefit of a certain person or persons. Such a special act is only required for the application of the ministerial or special fruit, as it is called; for the priest himself derives fruit from his Mass, as likewise do those who assist at it, and the faithful in general, without any special application.

As it belongs to one who prays to choose the intention for which he offers up his prayer, so the application of his Mass belongs to the priest. A superior may indeed prescribe the intention for which a Mass is to be offered, but he who celebrates the Mass must make the actual application. This should be done before the consecration is finished, for, according to the common opinion, the essence of the Mass consists in the consecration, and an action cannot receive its direction from an intention which is only formed after the action is accomplished. Probably, however, it will be sufficient if the intention is formed between the two consecrations.

It is not necessary that the intention by which Mass is applied should be actual or even virtual; it is sufficient if it be habitual, or made once for all and not afterward revoked.

When Mass is said for a stipend it is not necessary for the priest to know precisely what the intention is for which he is desired to say Mass; it is sufficient if he say Mass for the intention of the giver of the stipend. Clement VIII forbade priests to offer Mass for the first who should give a stipend for that purpose, and if no one actually intended to ask for a Mass when a priest celebrated with such an intention the Mass would not be applied.

A priest does not sin if he celebrates without any special intention, but it is always better to have one, as then the Mass will be more fruitful. When a priest celebrates for a stipend he may not divide the fruits of the Mass, applying the satisfactory or other fruit to the intention of the giver, and another The Application fruit to some other intention.

The whole fruit of the sacrifice must go to the giver of the stipend. When, however, a Mass is ordered by a superior in thanksgiving for some blessing, it will not be wrong to apply the other fruits for other intentions which in no way interfere with that prescribed by authority.

IV. The application of the special fruit. I said of the special fruit; for the general and most special fruits do not need application. The former, by the very fact that the sacrifice is offered, comes to the whole Church; the latter, by the very fact that he offers worthily, comes to the priest offering. But the special fruit needs the application of the priest; hence something must be said about it.

1. The notion and division of application. Application is the intention of the priest of specially offering Mass for some cause or causes, or for some person or persons. Application can be distinguished as twofold, public and private. Public application is had when the faithful are publicly advised of the Mass to be offered for such a one, or when someone's name is inserted into the prayers. Private application is had when neither are the faithful publicly advised nor is a name inserted into the prayers.

2. The power of applying. The priest can apply the special fruit; this is clear both from universal practice and from the condemned doctrine of the Synod of Pistoia.¹ If the application is positively excluded, the special fruit remains in the treasury of the Church. If it is applied expressly to no one, or to one incapable, according to some the fruit remains in the treasury of the Church; according to others, it comes to the priest himself or to those for whom he is specially bound to offer, because they judge that the priest implicitly intended this (St. Alphonsus, VI, 336).

3. The persons for whom application can be made. It is permitted to apply Mass for any of the living, and also for the dead expiating their sins in the fire of purgatory, with the prescription of canon 2262, § 2, n. 2 saved (canon 809). Therefore:

a) As regards the living, Mass can be applied for all. Nevertheless: 1. it is permitted only privately, and scandal being removed, to apply it for the excommunicated; heretics and schismatics are regarded as such by the external judgment of the Church, but not unbelievers. Hence, if scandal is absent, it can also be applied publicly for these;² a fortiori catechumens are not excluded from it. 2. For an excommunicated person to be avoided, it is permitted to apply it only privately and for his conversion alone (canon 2262, § 2, 2).

b) As regards the dead, the damned being excluded, Mass can likewise be applied for all. Nevertheless for those excluded from ecclesiastical burial (canon 1240), it is permitted to apply it only privately; for any funeral Mass, even anniversary, and other public funeral offices must be denied to these (canon 1241).

Note 1. Let the priest take care that there is not something of evil, error, or superstition in unbelievers offering alms.³

Note 2. Even if someone were excluded by the Church from application, nevertheless the priest could pray for him by private intention in the Memento of the living; likewise he could apply to him the fruits coming to the priest ex opere operantis, insofar as this is of the priest, but not the fruits ex opere operato, or ex opere operantis insofar as this is done in the name of the Church.

Note 3. Masses can also be offered or applied in honor of the Saints; this is clear from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that it is an imposture to celebrate Masses in honor of the Saints and for obtaining their intercession before God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema."⁴ In what sense, or for what end, this is done, the same Council teaches in these words: "And although the Church has sometimes been accustomed to celebrate certain Masses in honor and memory of the Saints, nevertheless she does not teach that sacrifice is offered to them, but to God alone, who crowned them. Hence neither is the priest accustomed to say: I offer sacrifice to you, Peter or Paul; but giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, so that they may deign to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we make on earth."⁵

4. The requisites for valid application are:

a) That it be made by the celebrant himself, who cannot leave it to be made by anyone, not even Christ. Namely, Christ, who conferred upon the priest the power of applying, is judged to have committed its exercise to the priest alone. Hence the application would be invalid: "I apply the Mass to him to whom Christ applies it." It must be said otherwise of this application: "I apply the Mass to him to whom Christ is more pleased that it be applied" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 334).

b) That it be made before the sacrifice is perfected as regards its essence; hence according to some, before the consecration of the blood; according to others, before every consecration. In practice, so that every danger of frustration may be guarded against, let it be made before the consecration. Indeed, it is better to make it before the Offertory, or rather before Mass, so that both the Offertory and the other liturgical prayers and actions may benefit the one giving the stipend.

c) That it be made through at least a habitual intention, that is, one made and not retracted. A habitual intention suffices, because application is made by way of donation, which obtains its effect even if time or acts intervene between the conceived intention and the execution given to it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 335). Nevertheless, it is advised that application not be extended for too long a time, and that at least sometimes, for example at the beginning of the month for the whole month, it be determined. An interpretative intention, since it does not truly exist, does not suffice.

d) That it be determined as regards the person or cause. Hence if someone has received a stipend from five persons, or five stipends for different deceased persons, the intention of applying for one of the five does not suffice if no one has been determined explicitly or implicitly. Nevertheless an implicit determination suffices, for example the intention: 1. of applying for him who offered the stipend, or who has been assigned by the celebrant in the booklet for this day; 2. of applying according to the mind of him who transmitted the stipend, provided that he formed the intention; 3. of applying according to the order established by another, for example by a superior or by the rector of the church. It is no obstacle that the celebrant perhaps does not know the intention or errs about it. Likewise a disjunctive determination suffices, as if someone says: "I say Mass for the intention of the pastor, if he has established one for me; otherwise for that intention" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 335).

If a priest has collected a heap of stipends and does not know in what order they were given, the intention of celebrating according to the order in which they were in fact given or accepted suffices; or, with respect to several stipends given at the same time for different persons, according to the order in which they were destined by the one giving, if the designation occurred; otherwise, in proportion to the right of each one comprehended in the number. All these things are at least known to God. Likewise the intention of applying all and each Masses, in proportion to the right, to all for whom they were given suffices. Namely, since the fruit of the Mass is divisible, after all the Masses have been celebrated each one has obtained his own.

If the priest himself did not collect the Masses but received a heap from another, for example from a bishop or from the administrator of a pious place, it is per se the part of the distributor to set the order beforehand, and of the celebrant to apply according to the order set beforehand. But if the distributor did not set the order beforehand, the priest can celebrate according to either order explained above (St. Alphonsus, VI, 335).

e) That it not be made under a suspensive condition, for example for the intention of him who will first offer the stipend. For an application made in this way regards a future intention, and therefore would involve suspension of the effect. Hence canon 825, 1: "It is never permitted to apply Mass to the intention of one who, after an alms has been offered, is going to ask for the application, but has not yet asked, and to retain the alms given afterward for a Mass previously applied." Nevertheless this does not prevent a Mass from being celebrated, for example, for a deceased person for whom it is foreseen that a Mass will be requested; and afterward, if a Mass is requested, from signifying that some Mass has been said, and from accepting the stipend if it pleases the one asking. Such an application does not depend on a future intention, and therefore does not suspend the effect (St. Alphonsus, VI, 337), nor does it depend on the intention of the one who will ask for the application. For the rest, an intention under a condition about the past or present is always valid, except in the case about which we are now going to speak.

f) That it not be made under a condition not naturally knowable; since God, who has disposed things conformably to a human mode of acting, is not judged to have conferred upon the priest the faculty of applying dependently upon such a condition. Hence the application seems invalid: "I apply the Mass for you, if you are predestined."

What if someone has elicited two contrary intentions?

Response 1. The later prevails, if he conceived it while mindful of the prior intention.

Response 2. If he conceived the later while forgetful of the prior intention, the later likewise prevails, unless, as it seems must be said, he made the prior intention in such a way that he willed it to prevail even if through forgetfulness he were going to elicit another. For the rest, in doubt which intention prevails, afterward let Mass be celebrated for the intention which did not prevail, and thus all things are safe.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1530.

² Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 11 March 1848 (Collectanea, n. 1028); Holy Office, 12 July 1848 (Collectanea, n. 1274).

³ Holy Office, 12 July 1865 (Collectanea, n. 1274).

⁴ Session 22, canon 5.

⁵ Session 22, chapter 3.

I. The source of the obligation is divine right or law, as the Council of Trent expressly teaches.¹ Now bishops are bound by absolute or immediate divine law; namely, the Holy Spirit Himself placed them to rule the Church of God, so that they cannot be lacking in the organism of the Church. But to the office of ruling and feeding is annexed the obligation of applying. Pastors are bound by hypothetical or mediate divine law; namely, on the hypothesis that by the Supreme Pontiff or by the bishops they are called into a share of pastoral solicitude, or for ruling a part of the flock. Thus from the Constitution of Leo XIII In suprema.² From these things it is also explained why pastors obtain some moderation of the obligation more easily than bishops (St. Alphonsus, VI, 324, question 2).

¹ Session 23, chapter 1, on reform.

² 10 June 1882.

II. The subject and object of the obligation. 1. Bishops, after having taken possession of the see, with every excuse from scantiness of revenues or any other exception removed, must apply Mass for the people committed to them on all Sundays and other feast days of precept, even suppressed ones (canon 339, § 1).

a) The feast days on which application is prescribed, according to the declaration of the Pontifical Commission,¹ are to be taken according to the catalogue established by Urban VIII in the Constitution Universa,² and again promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Council,³ with the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary added from the Constitution of Clement XI Commissi nobis,⁴ and by force of the cited canon. They are therefore: the Nativity of the Lord, Circumcision, Epiphany, Easter with the two following days, Ascension, Pentecost with the two following days, Trinity, Corpus Christi, Invention of the Holy Cross, Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, Immaculate Conception, Dedication of St. Michael, Nativity of St. John the Baptist, all the Holy Apostles, St. Stephen, Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence, St. Sylvester, St. Joseph, St. Anne, All Saints, and the feast of one of the principal patrons in any kingdom or province, and likewise of another principal patron in any city, town, or village where it happens that these patrons are had and venerated. Moreover, if somewhere by concession of the Holy See a particular feast of precept is celebrated, on this feast too there is the obligation of applying for the people (canon 339, § 1).

There is dispute about the obligation on feast days which previously were of precept from particular law, but now have been suppressed by force of the Code. Now the obligation seems to be maintained, both because of a particular response issued,⁵ and because canon 466, § 1 generally declares that on feast days of precept, even suppressed ones, the obligation persists.

b) Although a bishop governs two or more dioceses equally principally united, or besides his own diocese has another or others in administration, nevertheless he satisfies the obligation by the celebration and application of one Mass for the whole people committed to him (canon 339, § 5).

As regards titular bishops, canon 348, § 2 states: It is fitting from charity, yet without obligation, that they sometimes apply the sacrifice of the Mass for their diocese.

2. A capitular vicar is bound in the same way as a bishop to apply Mass for the people (canon 440).

3. Vicars and prefects apostolic must apply the sacrifice of the Mass for the peoples committed to them at least on the solemnities of the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, the Most Holy Body of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph her spouse, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and All Saints (canon 306).

4. An apostolic administrator, if he has been constituted permanently, is bound to apply as a bishop; if he has been given for a time, he is not bound by the obligation, which burdens a bishop, of applying Mass for the people (canon 315).

5. Pastors,⁶ after having taken possession of the parish, are bound on the same days and by the same obligation as bishops to apply Mass for the people committed to them (canon 466, § 1). Nevertheless:

a) A pastor who perhaps governs several parishes equally principally united, or besides his own parish has another or others in administration, must apply only one Mass for the peoples committed to him on the prescribed days (canon 466, § 2). The same holds of a vicar-economus who governs several parishes during a vacancy.⁷ If, however, the matter concerns the feast of the patron of the place, the pastor who, besides his own parish, has another or several others in administration, is bound to apply Mass for the people not only on the feast day of the patron of his own parish, but also on the feasts of the patrons of the other parish or parishes, unless the patrons occur as to be honored on the same day, either because the same one is the patron, or because the feast of the patrons is celebrated on the same day from liturgical laws.⁸

b) The local Ordinary can for a just cause permit the pastor to apply Mass for the people on another day than the one on which he is bound by law (canon 466, § 3); this permission can also be granted habitually.

c) The pastor should celebrate the Mass to be applied for the people in the parish church, unless circumstances of things require or suggest that Mass be celebrated elsewhere (canon 466, § 4); for example if because of a special feast there is a concourse of the people in some chapel or succursal church within the limits of the parish. Likewise one who applies through another must per se take care that the other celebrate in the parish church.⁹

d) A solemn or sung Mass is not prescribed, but a private Mass suffices.¹⁰

6. Quasi-pastors are bound on the same days as vicars and prefects apostolic, under 3, to apply Mass for the people committed to them (canon 466, § 1).

7. A vicar-economus, constituted while the parish is vacant, is bound as a pastor (canon 473, § 1).

¹ 17 February 1918, ad II (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1918, p. 170).

² 13 September 1642.

³ 28 December 1919 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1920, p. 42).

⁴ 6 December 1708.

⁵ In Il Monitore Ecclesiastico 1920, p. 72.

⁶ Who come under the name of pastor and quasi-pastor, see in the treatise on Matrimony.

⁷ Pontifical Commission, 14 July 1922, ad VI (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, p. 528).

⁸ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 November 1927 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1928, p. 84).

⁹ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 December 1872.

¹⁰ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 February 1847, n. 2939, ad IV; 22 July 1848, n. 2967.

III. A fuller explanation of the object of the obligation. 1. On the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, and if some feast of precept falls on a Sunday, it suffices that they apply one Mass for the people (canon 339, § 2). If a feast is transferred in such a way that on the day to which it is transferred not only is the office with the Mass of the transferred feast performed, but also the obligations of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works are observed, the Mass for the people must be applied on the day to which it is transferred; otherwise on the day from which it is transferred (canon 339, § 3).

2. One who is bound by the obligation of applying must himself apply Mass personally (canon 339, § 4, compared with canons 306 and 466, § 1). Nevertheless, a legitimately absent pastor can apply Mass for the people either personally in the place where he is staying, or through the priest who takes his place in the parish (canon 466, § 5). If someone on the same day is urged by the burden of both Masses, namely for the people and conventual, let him celebrate and apply the latter personally, and the former through another or personally on the following day (canon 419, § 2).

3. A pastor legitimately absent, if he does not apply personally, and likewise one legitimately impeded from personally applying Mass for the people, should apply through another on the appointed days.

Legitimately impeding causes are: 1. physical or moral inability; 2. the obligation of celebrating conventual Mass, if the pastor is also a canon (canon 419, § 2). But the following do not legitimately impede: 1. the mere custom of applying through another;¹ 2. the custom of applying now personally, now through another, for example through a chaplain, if the latter celebrates solemn Mass;² 3. the liturgical precept which wills that the Mass for the people be conformed to the office. Hence if the external solemnity of some feast is transferred, and in the transfer a votive Mass is sung, the pastor cannot, so that he himself may celebrate that votive Mass, leave the application for the people to the chaplain or another; 4. the celebration of a funeral Mass, even with the corpse present.³

4. One who can apply neither personally nor through another on the appointed days should apply as soon as possible, either personally or through another, on another day (cited canon).

5. The real obligation, that is, either of applying for the people or of taking care that it be applied for them, is grave. The obligation of applying personally, at the fixed time, and, if the matter concerns a pastor, in the parish church, is grave from its genus, so that he would sin gravely who frequently neglected these things.

6. One who has not satisfied the obligation should as soon as possible apply for the people as many Masses as he omitted (canon 339, § 6, compared with canons 306 and 466, § 1).

7. One who applies Mass for the people in place of the pastor can receive a stipend for that Mass; but an impeded pastor is bound at his own expense to take care that it be applied for the people.

¹ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 22 September 1847.

² Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 April 1881.

³ Sacred Congregation of the Council, 26 January 1771.

I. The celebration of Mass can be commanded by a competent superior. This is clear from what was said about the object of law and precept (vol. I, n. 117).

II. The application of Mass can be commanded as follows:

1. The Supreme Pontiff can certainly do this, insofar as he determines divine law, as if he prescribes that those having care of souls should sometimes celebrate for the people.

2. Religious superiors can do the same, at least by force of dominative power, with respect to their subjects, provided that the vow emitted in religion is so understood;¹ they can transfer to subjects the obligation of justice annexed to a stipend received (St. Alphonsus, VI, 317, question 4).

3. It is disputed whether ecclesiastical superiors who enjoy only the power of jurisdiction can do the same; likewise whether the superior of a religious institute can do the same by force of the same power. The Sacred Congregation of the Council, in the Vigevano case,² admits the affirmative opinion (cf. vol. I, n. 117).

III. One who has promised a Mass gratuitously is bound under venial sin, namely from fidelity, to stand by what was promised, unless he intended to bind himself under grave sin, or from justice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 317, question 4; vol. I, n. 864).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Religious, 3 May 1914.

² 8 May 1920 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1920, p. 536).

Application of the Mass.—All the faithful, especially those who are present and also the celebrant himself, benefit by the Mass, but there is a special fruit reserved to those for whose intention the Mass is offered by the priest; for the Mass is a sacrifice of intercession, propitiation, and satisfaction, and since the priest acts in the person of Christ he may apply its benefits specially to some particular person or persons. In the following cases the celebrant is bound to make this application of the ministerial fruit of the Mass.

(a) In virtue of their office, pastors are seriously obliged to say Mass for their flocks. There is a natural obligation on account of the relationship between the pastor and the people, and there is also a divine obligation, inasmuch as the priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin (Heb., v, 1). The details of this duty, as to the time, place and person, are prescribed in Canons 306, 339, 466. There is a grave duty of saying for the people the number of Masses which the Church orders; but the non-observance of the circumstances is not a mortal sin, unless it happens frequently and without reason.

(b) In virtue of justice, a priest who has received a stipend is bound to apply the Mass for the intention of the donor, and to observe the conditions of the agreement (i.e., the time, place, and kind of Mass specified by the donor). The duty of application is a grave one, because the loss inflicted on the donor by non-application of the Mass to his intention is serious; the duty of observance of the accidental conditions, however, is not generally grave, but it becomes grave if its neglect inflicts serious harm (e.g., if the donor makes the date of the Mass a conditio sine qua non, or if the Mass must be said at once on account of an urgent and immediate necessity). Restitution is obligatory if the Mass is not applied, or if essential conditions are not complied with; it is obligatory sub gravi, if the stipend equals what is relatively grave matter in theft.

(c) In virtue of obedience, subjects are held to apply Masses for the intention of their prelates, secular or religious, though bishops are counselled to exact this most rarely. The obligation is grave or light according to the intention of the superior, but if the application is also due in justice to the giver of the stipend, there is a serious duty.

(d) In virtue of religion or fidelity, there is an obligation of application when a priest has vowed this to God, or freely promised it to man. The duty is grave or light according to the intention of the vower or promisor (see 2210, 2407). But if there is an onerous promise (e.g., in a society of priests whose members agree to say Mass for fellow-members who have died), the duty is one of justice. One Mass satisfies several free promises, if distinct Masses were not promised.

Duties of the Priest as to the Application of Mass.—(a) For Whom May Mass Be Applied?—Mass may be offered for all objects not forbidden. From the divine law it is forbidden to offer Mass for those who are incapable of receiving its benefits (e.g., the demons, infants who died without Baptism, the Saints), or for intentions that are displeasing to God (e.g., for success in evil). From the ecclesiastical law certain restrictions are made on the application of Mass in order to safeguard reverence and prevent scandal. Thus, Mass may be said only privately (that is, without publicity or special liturgical solemnity) and prudently (that is, with avoidance of scandal, for example, by the declaration that Mass is said for the faithful departed with the purpose of aiding also a departed unbeliever, if this is pleasing to God) for the living and dead outside the Church, such as infidels, heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicated. Moreover, for a vitandus Mass may be applied only when the intention is his conversion (Canon 809).

(b) How Mass Must Be Applied.—The intention must be formed by the priest, since he represents Christ. But since his application does not produce but only bestows the fruits, it suffices that his applicatory intention be habitual and implicit, as when the celebrant has forgotten the intention formed before Mass, or applies according to the mind of his superior. The person or purpose to which Mass is applied must be at least implicitly determined, and the application must be made at least before the second consecration. If there are two conflicting intentions, the stronger prevails (2667), and, if it is doubtful which one was stronger, Mass should be next offered for the intention which God knows was not satisfied. It is unlawful to apply Mass by anticipation for the next person who will offer a stipend.

1. "Whether a missionary can receive the alms of the Mass and apply it according to the mind or intention of a pagan offerer, who has as his purpose obtaining healing from illness, or liberation from prison and from the capital penalty which hangs over him?

R. "Affirmatively." S. C. de P. F. 11 March 1848., Cf. Enchirid. Moral. 368., I. M. 610.

2. In a certain religious community the father procurator was accustomed at the beginning of each month to distribute Mass intentions among the fathers dwelling in the same community. The same procurator received the stipends of these Masses abundantly, so that there were never lacking to him Masses to be distributed. Since at the beginning of some month a certain father forgot to go to the father procurator, and to ask from him new Masses to be celebrated, nevertheless he celebrated according to his intention. Hence the question was raised whether for that Mass the father procurator could retain a stipend from those already accepted, or whether a Mass had to be celebrated again.

R. It seems that the father procurator can retain the stipend for that Mass; nor does another seem to have to be celebrated. The reason is that that Mass was said for a certain and determinate intention. For that father knew both that the procurator had Masses with himself to be distributed, and that it was his will that they be said by the fathers dwelling in that community. There is added the authority of Francis Sylvius, Op. tom. 5. Orat. 11., which is the first on anticipated Masses, Concl. 2. He resolves almost the same case, and says: "He who celebrates in anticipation according to the intention of one who is accustomed to have Masses to be commended to others, that is, before he has either been requested by him or has himself reminded him, does not act badly, and can receive the stipend from him without scruple." And for this same opinion he cites Reginald, Rodriguez, Fagundez, and Aragonius, who writes thus concerning the preceding assertion: Therefore these things are certain, and I judge that no one can doubt concerning them; in which way Peter Navarra also speaks, apud Sylv. l. c. - Claude La Croix affirms the same, l. 6. n. 220: "I can," he says, "apply a Mass for him whom I know in fact wishes to ask a Mass from me, although he has not yet asked. Except if I knew that he wished to ask for some effect toward which the sacrifice would not yet help"; and he cites Pasq. and Sylvius. - And below, answering the question: "Whether he satisfies who celebrates for him whom God knows will first give the stipend," after bringing forward doctors on each side he says: "It must be said with the common opinion that such an application is always made illicitly, and often also invalidly." Illicitly indeed because of the special prohibition made by Clement VIII; often invalidly, because often at that time the intention of the petitioner does not yet exist; indeed, often neither does the motive or cause of asking. And he adds, n. 222: "All the opposite things are in the chaplain of whom Burgh speaks. Nevertheless Vasq., Rayn., and Avers. admit that Mass can be read for one actually dead, for whom afterward a Mass will first be requested, with a stipend offered, because thus it is usefully offered for that determinate person, already in need and capable of the whole fruit." - G. 337. 345. 346., I. M. 618.

3. Benignus the confessor, having been requested by his penitent concerning the celebration of Mass for the soul of his mother, who had died the preceding night, with a rich stipend offered to him, indeed promised his penitent that he would celebrate Mass, but he refused to accept the stipend from him, and left it to him, saying: I will say the Mass all the same. But afterward, thinking that he had not received the stipend, he omitted to celebrate the Mass without any scruple. Another time the same Benignus did almost the same thing on a similar occasion, when a pious woman offered him a stipend for the celebration of Mass. He renounced the stipend, promising the Mass, but afterward celebrated the Mass in a second intention, because, he says, the Mass is of infinite value. Likewise, on another occasion, a certain noble man offered Benignus a thousand lire for the celebration of ten Masses. Benignus indeed promised the Masses, but not on this occasion either did he accept the stipend, and he asked that man to be willing rather to give that considerable sum as alms to some poor family. He then celebrated the Masses, but again in a second intention. Finally, Benignus is called to a dying man, who asked him what would be better, and also what he could do more usefully and fruitfully: whether namely to leave his inheritance to the poor, or to destine it to building a public church and to the celebration of Masses for his soul after death. Without hesitation Benignus answered: There is no doubt that it is better to leave your whole inheritance to be distributed among the poor, who are the living temple of the Holy Spirit, who represent the very Person of Christ.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Benignus in the first Case undoubtedly sinned. For he undertook from justice an obligation of celebrating Mass; for he promised that he would celebrate Mass in exactly the same way as if he had accepted the stipend. Also in the second Case Benignus sinned. For, voluntarily renouncing the stipend offered and at the same time promising the Mass, he is certainly understood to promise the same Mass which was requested with the stipend offered, which indeed is not satisfied by a Mass in a second intention. And there can be no doubt that if the matter as it is were manifested to that pious woman, she would rightly and deservedly think herself gravely deceived. To apply Mass in a second intention is, besides the primary intention of the application of the Mass, to make another application of the same Mass, according to the opinion that Mass can be applied indefinitely; which opinion is altogether less probable, and, if perhaps it is false, that application is null. Likewise, to apply in a second intention can be explained through a conditional application in substitution for the first, if perhaps this has no place. Thirdly, finally, to apply in a second intention can be equivalent to a certain special Memento. Hence also in the third Case Benignus sinned. For certainly, if that noble man had known Benignus's manner of acting, he would have gone to another priest for the celebration of the Masses, since he altogether intended it, and therefore was offering a wholly extraordinary stipend. Who indeed would not say that Benignus deceived that noble man in a very grave matter? Finally, Benignus did not answer rightly; for there can be no doubt that a work of Religion, such as the construction of a church, which is destined for the worship of God and for the public good of souls, likewise the celebration of Masses or the Eucharistic sacrifice, whose fruit redounds to the whole Church, and whence there is such glory of God that greater cannot exist in this world, are works more excellent and more useful and more fruitful than a work of corporal mercy, namely alms given to the poor. These works likewise are also more useful and fruitful for the soul of the deceased after death; since both the prayers of the faithful in that church and the sacrifice of the Masses can certainly have more worth before God for the suffrage of his soul than alms given to the poor. Hence, when there is room for moderation of pious legacies, because, for example, the revenues no longer suffice for all the prescribed works, first other pious works are deleted, and meanwhile the number of Masses is left intact. And if the number of Masses also must be restrained, and some are to be celebrated with chant, one must begin from these, so that the number of Masses may be diminished as little as possible. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13. c. 25. n. 34.

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.

5. Martianus, having accepted a stipend for celebrating on a privileged altar, celebrated on another altar. But in order to gain a plenary indulgence for the deceased for whom he celebrated, after Mass he recited the prayer, En ego, o bone, etc.

Quaer. Whether Martianus is bound to perform another Mass on a privileged altar?

R. "More probably, negatively. The reason is that he who gave the stipend can seek nothing else than the privilege of the altar, or the plenary indulgence, since he has already obtained the Mass. But that indulgence can be bestowed upon the deceased even outside Mass, namely if the priest devoutly tries to apply some plenary indulgence to this deceased person, for example by traversing the Way of the Cross, or by reciting after Mass the prayer which begins: En ego, o bone et dulcissime Iesu, etc., and at the same time praying according to the intention of the Pontiff, etc." Thus Fr. Gury 344.

But, as is clear from the Responses of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, speaking per se, Martianus could not thus satisfy his obligation by celebrating on another non-privileged altar, and then gaining a plenary indulgence by the aforesaid prayer; rather, he ought to have celebrated on a privileged altar. Cf. Enchir. Mor. 629., I. M. 1380.

6. In a certain church a box was publicly set out near the door with this inscription: Alms for Masses to be celebrated on the Altar of the Chapel of the miraculous image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hence alms were collected daily from the box, and on the following day one Mass was celebrated at that Altar by the rector of the church, who took those alms for himself, whether they were more or fewer, but they always exceeded daily the sum of fifty lire.

It is asked: Whether the aforesaid rector acted rightly?

R. Negatively. For, as is clear from the obvious sense of that inscription, as many Masses ought daily to be celebrated as could be celebrated, according to the diocesan tariff. But if so many Masses could not be celebrated, e.g., on account of a lack of priests, then the offerers are to be warned. This is confirmed from the following Case resolved by the S. C. C.: In very many States of North America the custom had prevailed that, for the single Mass which is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, the faithful should contribute money. But the sum of money thus collected was ordinarily so great that it would easily equal the alms of several hundred Masses. It was asked whether the aforesaid custom, which in some way at least was already becoming known to those offering, was to be absolutely prohibited. Now the S. C. C., Jan. 27, 1877, replied: "Let nothing be innovated: only let a tablet be placed in the church, by which the faithful may be taught that with those very alms one Mass is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed." For then without doubt the faithful would consent that one Mass be sung for all that money, and from mere liberality they would bestow the excess. A. S. S. vol. 10, p. 125.

7. The procurator general of a religious order received from a certain pious person 100 lire for 10 Masses. He put them away with all diligence in his desk; but on the following day he found nothing; and he could find nothing, because a household thief had stolen them. The same procurator at another time received 100 lire from another pious person, but one unknown to him, for 50 Masses. On the following day, when he wishes to exchange the received note of 100 lire for others of lesser value, he finds it to be false. Hence he now asks whether he is bound to the celebration of the aforesaid Masses.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. In the first Case the procurator is bound to the celebration of the Masses. The reason is that he, having accepted the stipend, undertook the obligation of celebrating, or causing to be celebrated, those 10 Masses; but the stipend, once accepted, he made his own, or rather the Convent's, namely by accepting it in the name of the Convent and for the Convent: whence he, or rather the Convent, ought patiently to sustain the loss of that stipend: for a thing perishes to its owner. Nor perhaps is it valid to object that those 100 lire were found enclosed in some paper with a superscription indicating that they were a stipend for Masses to be celebrated. For the thief who stole them certainly will not employ them for the celebration of Masses, and this surely cannot prudently be presumed.

But it does not seem that in the other Case he is bound to the celebration of the Masses. For in Masses to be celebrated for a stipend an unnamed contract intervenes: I give that you may do. But that pious person, although in good faith, in reality gave nothing. Therefore also Fr. Procurator is bound to do nothing. Nor indeed is it valid to object that that pious person acted in good faith, and therefore truly had the will of imposing the obligation of Masses to be celebrated, an obligation accepted by the procurator. For the will of the pious person obligating, and the will of the procurator accepting the obligation, essentially presupposed the stipend offered and accepted, which does not exist.

8. "Whether a priest, in anniversaries of the dead which are requested out of devotion, satisfies by celebrating the Mass of the Saint, when according to the rubrics the Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated?"

R. "Affirmatively." S. R. C., Apr. 23, 1875, ad 4, n. 2352; Aug. 5, 1662, n. 1238.

9. "Does a priest, to whom an alms is given for celebrating a Mass for one or more deceased persons, or a votive Mass in honor of some Mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of a Saint, satisfy his obligation by making the Mass conformable to the office, when otherwise the rite of the day does not permit the requested Mass, provided that he applies it according to the intention of the one giving the alms?"

R. It would seem that the proposed question should be answered negatively from the Decree of the S. R. C., Mar. 3, 1761, n. 2461: "On days on which private votive Masses or Masses of the dead can be said, a priest obliged to them by reason of a foundation or of an accepted manual stipend does not satisfy his own obligation by saying the Mass of the occurring day: for the express will of testators or petitioners, provided it be rational, must be fulfilled." The same negative response can be confirmed from another later Decree of the same S. R. C., Sept. 28, 1872, n. 3285.

Nevertheless, to the proposed question by a very recent Decree the S. R. C. itself replies: "Affirmatively; but it is more advisable that, as far as can be done, satisfaction be made to the intention of the one giving the alms by a Mass either of requiem or votive." S. R. C., June 13, 1899, n. 4031.

10. Retention of part of the stipend - Titius the priest, while making spiritual exercises, is very greatly troubled by three matters. a) To relieve the poverty of priests who, dwelling in a small town, very often lacked alms for Masses, by the help of a certain layman, a most industrious man, he collected many Masses with a stipend of two or three lire. But distributing these to the priests he retained whatever exceeded the synodal tariff of their diocese, assigning part of it to himself under the title of labor and industry employed, and granting part to the man out of gratitude. Aware of this matter, the priests of the small town were silent, giving thanks to Titius from the heart. b) Since a quantity of gold coin had been sent to him from France for Masses to be celebrated, he granted the whole stipend to the priests celebrating, but first exchanged the gold coin into another which is called paper money, and retained for himself whatever profit there was. c) From A., a nobleman to whom he had rendered a great favor, he received a stipend of one hundred lire for a Mass to be celebrated, yet he entrusted that celebration to another priest, giving an alms according to the synodal tariff.

Titius opens all these things in sacramental confession. The confessor remains uncertain, asking himself:

1. On what basis and how much can a priest receive as the stipend of a Mass? - 2. Whether it is licit to entrust a Mass to another to be celebrated, with part of the stipend retained? - 3. What is to be judged concerning the individual things in the Case?

Resp. to the 1st. In the first Question there are two questions. The first is: On what basis can a priest receive a stipend for the celebration of Mass? - To receive a stipend for the sacrifice of the Mass itself is certainly simony, and illicit. For simony consists in this, that a spiritual thing is given for a temporal thing. But if a stipend is received, not under a title intrinsic to the Mass itself, but under the extrinsic title of the support of the priest, simony ceases, and it is licit. Yet with this title, commonly admitted, there is difficulty in explaining how the stipend is owed from justice. Under the title of support alone, the stipend cannot be owed from justice. Otherwise a stipend would be owed from justice to anyone needing support, although he did nothing. By mere donation and alms that which is given and donated is ordinarily given for support. Therefore support is rather the extrinsic end than the intrinsic title of the stipend in the celebration of Masses. Now the stipend in this celebration of Masses is owed from justice. Therefore its intrinsic title is to be sought apart from every simony. Moreover there is the most grave difficulty: how, if a priest receives a stipend under the title of support alone, he can receive it even though he does not need support, because, e.g., he can already sufficiently support himself from a benefice. Therefore a title must be sought by force of which any priest can receive a stipend for the celebration of Masses. This title consists in this, that it is the wage of a work or of labor which someone performs. But labor is any inconvenience by which one is affected in carrying out the sacrifice of the Mass. Now that which is given on account of the work, or labor, is the wage of the work and labor, and therefore there is no simony; since on both sides there is something temporal; nor consequently is that which is given and received given and received as the price of a spiritual thing.

Indeed, as in all other matters there is a wage of work and labor, so also in the celebration of Masses. And as in all other matters one can bargain for that wage of labor, so also in the celebration of Masses; and therefore then the stipend is owed from justice, and the Mass will have to be celebrated. The contract which intervenes is certainly not of sale and purchase of the Mass; but it is an unnamed contract, I give that you may do. Hence in Luke 10:7 it is said: The laborer is worthy of his wage; and in 1 Cor. 9:7: Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Why is the laborer worthy of a wage, except by reason of the labor which he undergoes for the advantage of others? Why is the soldier worthy of a stipend, except because military service is laborious and very useful to others? It is indeed true that, in the celebration of Masses, as in other spiritual things, labor, as advantageous and useful to others, does not give a right to a wage, since advantage and usefulness of this kind is spiritual and unsalable. Yet, although that labor, by reason of the office performed, or as advantageous to another for whose sake it is done, cannot be sold, nor gives a right to a wage: nevertheless from this it does not follow that precisely as it is labor, bringing weariness and trouble, requiring time, and hindering one from other lucrative functions to which one could apply himself, it is not worthy of compensation and wage. And indeed every labor is estimable by price not only by reason of the help or office rendered, but also by reason of itself. And thus in the wage of labor, great account is often taken, and the wage increases, by reason of the greater weariness itself or the longer time, although the usefulness of that labor is less. Therefore one who asks a wage with regard to labor alone in the manner aforesaid commits no injustice and no simony in itself. In itself; for simony can then intervene only if, namely, a prohibition of the Church intervenes; and therefore simony then would be, not of divine law, but of merely ecclesiastical law. Hence the other proposed difficulty vanishes: for whether the priest is rich or poor he always has a right to the stipend of his labor, he is always worthy of his wage. But he who, with regard to his sacred action, or insofar as this is advantageous and useful to another, demands something, commits simony of divine law, because he sells the sanctity of his work.

As to the other question of the first Question: How much can a priest receive as the stipend of a Mass? at first sight it would seem necessary to say that he can and ought to receive as much as is required and suffices for his honest support. For to this the wage of labor is of itself ordered, namely that by his labor a man be honestly supported. But because not every labor which is placed in individual actions merits the whole support of that day, what has been received by usage and approved or established by prelates must be observed. Therefore a priest can receive as the stipend of a Mass the quantity established by diocesan law or custom. This, however, of itself does not prevent him also from being able to receive less or more. For as a priest can celebrate Mass altogether gratuitously, so also he can celebrate it for a lesser stipend. And nothing prohibits the faithful from offering also a richer stipend with liberal charity.

As regards the second Question, one can entrust to another the celebration of a Mass. For, speaking regularly, it makes no difference whether one celebrates by himself or through another. But if the Mass to be celebrated is entrusted to another, it is not licit to hand over to the same person a lesser stipend, even a just one, if the greater stipend was received under the title of celebration alone. Indeed then every title for retaining part of that stipend is lacking. And this is confirmed from prop. 9 condemned by Alexander VII, whence it is held that a priest acting thus by no means satisfies through another, a lesser stipend having been conferred on him. But if the greater stipend is accepted not under the title of celebration alone, but under another extrinsic title, and with regard not only to the Mass but also to the person, then it is licit to retain the excess of the stipend, and to hand over to the priest celebrating only the part of a just and ordinary stipend. For then a title for retaining that part is not lacking.

As to the third Question, Titius does not seem to have acted rightly in the first Case. For he assigned to himself part of the stipend under the title of labor and industry. But the labor and industry of Titius certainly do not appear estimable by price. For all the labor and all the industry of Titius consist in this, that he asks a friend who is willing to collect Masses and hand them over to him. Therefore the labor and industry is rather that of that layman, a most industrious man, who collected many Masses and handed them over to him. Titius likewise granted part of the stipend to the aforesaid man out of gratitude. If a concession of this kind was made to remunerate the labor and industry of that most industrious layman, Titius does not seem to be disturbed. For the aforesaid layman is called most industrious, and in reality he collected many alms, and those not ordinary. Therefore there is no doubt that he was worthy of an equitable remuneration of his labor. - Nor likewise did Titius act rightly in the other Case. For all know that the value of gold coin is different and greater. Therefore those who entrust a stipend in gold coin for Masses to be celebrated by that very fact give a greater stipend for the celebration of Masses. Therefore to change money of this kind, and to hand over the stipend to the priests celebrating, but to retain for himself whatever profit there may be from that change, in reality is nothing other than not to hand over to the aforesaid priests the whole stipend, by retaining part of it for himself, which is altogether prohibited. Finally, in the third Case Titius does not seem to be disturbed. For the greater stipend had been given to Titius not only under the title of the celebration of the Mass, but by another personal cause, namely on account of the great favor rendered to that nobleman.

11. "Titius gathers a great quantity of Masses in Portugal, receiving the stipend in Portuguese money, which he exchanges for Spanish money, obtaining a profit of 30 and even of 40 per 100. He has these Masses celebrated by Spanish priests, giving them the same stipend, retaining for himself the profit of the exchange. Is it licit for Titius to retain the profit of the exchange of Portuguese money with Spanish money? - R. Negatively." - S. C. C., Nov. 21, 1898.

12. Several bishops in France obtained an Apostolic indult, by force of which parish priests have the faculty, on certain days on which otherwise Mass would have to be said for the people, of celebrating the most holy sacrifice according to the intention of the one giving the stipend, yet under this law, that that stipend be sent to the bishops and be spent for diocesan pious works determined by the Holy See. Now, since the faithful very often offer for this Mass an alms richer than the ordinary stipend, not a few parish priests, after sending, as is proper, to the bishops the stipend taxed by the diocesan statutes, claim that it is licit for what exceeds to be kept by themselves, because there is present, they say, an extrinsic title for retaining this part of the alms, namely either extraordinary labor, if the Mass is with chant, or if some journey must be made, or especially liberality spontaneously and evidently imparted with regard only to the person.

It is asked: Whether parish priests, after sending to the bishop the stipend taxed by the diocesan statutes, are able to retain for themselves the excess of the alms of the Masses?

R. Negatively, unless it is established with moral certitude that the excess of the common alms was offered with regard to the person, or on account of greater labor or inconvenience. S. C. C., Jan. 31, 1880, A. S. S. vol. 13, p. 261. The reason is that the Apostolic indult granted to parish priests, namely of celebrating according to the intention of the one giving the stipend the holy sacrifice of the Mass which was to be applied for the people, was not given unconditionally and absolutely by the Supreme Pontiff, but on this condition, that the accepted stipend be sent to the bishops and be spent for diocesan pious works determined by the Holy See. Therefore, just as the accepted stipend must be handed over in its entirety to the one celebrating the Mass, so in the Case the aforesaid stipend must be applied in its entirety to those pious works. And this is confirmed from the fact that the Supreme Pontiff by that Apostolic privilege did not have regard to the condition of the parish priests, but intended to favor only those pious works. Now although an accepted stipend, however rich, must be handed over in its entirety to the priest celebrating the Mass, nevertheless part of it can be retained if it is established with moral certitude that the excess of the common stipend was given under a title extrinsic to the celebration itself of the Mass, namely with regard to extraordinary labor, because there is question, e.g., of a Mass with chant, or with regard to the person, that is, on account of his dignity, or office, or relationship, or poverty, or on account of gratitude owed to him. For in the Case the parish priests do not have to send to the bishops anything except the stipend of the Masses. Therefore they can retain that excess for themselves. - I. M. 624, 625.

13. Generosus, a very rich and very pious man, was accustomed to give several alms to the parish priest, who was also his confessor, and left them to the discretion of the same parish priest, so that he might dispose of them according to his own pleasure. Now, dying, Generosus left a legacy of twenty thousand lire to the same parish priest, namely that he himself should celebrate, or cause to be celebrated, a Mass for his soul daily for a year.

It is asked: 1. Whether the parish priest can, on Sundays and feast days, entrust to another the Mass to be celebrated for the people, so that he himself can celebrate the aforesaid Mass? 2. Whether the parish priest can entrust the Mass in the Case to another to be celebrated, handing over to him only the ordinary stipend? 3. Whether one who unduly retains part of the stipend is guilty of theft; and is bound to restitution, and to whom he ought to restore?

The application of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the intention by which the priest wills that the fruit of the Sacrifice pass to the benefit of a certain person.

354. Principles. - I. In order that a share of the general fruit may be received, the application of the priest is not necessary; it suffices that he will to celebrate according to the mind of the Church, for such an application is always implicitly included in the general intention of the celebrant. Likewise, in order that the most special fruit may come to the priest himself, it is not necessary that he will specially to apply it to himself; for this is always applied to him of itself. Indeed, there are some who think that this fruit is so proper to him that it cannot be applied to another.

II. The application of the priest is required, however, in order that the special or ministerial fruit may come to someone. For the priest, and he alone, bears the person of Christ; therefore, just as he alone offers the Sacrifice for others in the person of Christ, so also he alone applies its fruit.

III. Although the priest has promised the Mass to no one, he ought to make some application of the special fruit. The reason is: 1. Because in his ordination he received, by the institution of Christ, the power of effecting the Sacrifice and, consequently, of applying its fruit; but that power would remain useless if the priest did not use it. 2. Moreover, if no application is made, there is no reason why it should profit one person more than another; therefore, the unapplied fruit remains in the general treasury of the Church, and consequently becomes less useful. - Billuart, diss. 8, art. 4.

355. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must the application of the fruit of the Mass be actual?

Reply. Negatively; it suffices that it be habitual, namely, that once made it is not retracted. The reason is that this application is made by way of donation, and thus through an intention once possessed the priest has already donated the fruit of his Sacrifice; consequently, it is owed to the one to whom he donated it and, when the Mass is celebrated, it comes to that person unless the donation is revoked. - St. Lig., no. 335. It is expedient, however, to make the application of the Mass before it is begun. But if the priest has not done this either before the consecration or at least in the consecration of the second Species, he cannot afterward apply the Sacrifice specially to anyone. - St. Lig., ibid.

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

Reply. It cannot be determined in general. The priest should consider which intention was predominant in his mind ¹. For the rest, in practice it matters little; for since one or the other is certainly valid, it will be sufficient on another occasion to apply the Mass to the one to whom it was not applied.

¹ Lugo (De Sacramentis, disp. 8, nos. 121, 123) explains which intention prevails in this way: If today you wish tomorrow's Mass to be applied altogether for Peter, so that this application is from now on to be preferred to any application to be made through forgetfulness of it, but tomorrow you apply the Mass for another, today's application will not be judged revoked, because it was more universal and revocatory of tomorrow's application.... If each act of the will were equal, the later would prevail. For just as a later testament always prevails over an earlier one, even if, when he makes the later one, a man does not remember the earlier one made by him, so, if yesterday you applied today's Mass for Peter, and today, forgetful of that act of will, you apply it for Paul by an equally absolute and efficacious act of will, this later one seems to be preferred.

QUESTION 3. Must the intention of the celebrant be explicitly determinate?

Reply. Negatively. It suffices that it be determined implicitly. Thus the application is valid if you say: I offer this Sacrifice for the one who gave the stipend; for the one for whom the Superior wills the Mass to be said; for the one for whom the foundation requires it; for the greatest sinner; for a soul afflicted by a graver temptation; for the soul in Purgatory needing greater help, or more pleasing to God; for all the souls in Purgatory; for the one to whom I am bound to apply it; for the person or intention determined in writing or in the mind at the beginning of the week, etc. On the contrary, this application is not valid: I offer so that God may apply this Mass. - See Cases, vol. II, no. 325 et seq.

356. QUESTION 4. If a priest has accepted stipends from ten persons, does he satisfy his obligation by celebrating with a confused and indeterminate intention?

Reply. Entirely negatively, because an intention determined at least to a certain person is required; otherwise, there is no reason why the Mass should be applied to one rather than to another, and thus it would be applied to no one. - St. Lig., no. 335. Nevertheless, if he were to intend to apply each Mass to those ten persons, applying one tenth of each Mass to each, he would satisfy the obligation, because the fruit of the Sacrifice is divisible and there is allotted to each what is owed to him. For, by receiving a tenth part of the fruit in each of ten Masses, each one, when the tenth Mass has been offered, has already obtained the whole fruit owed to him ². - St. Lig., no. 335, with many others.

² The Author replies thus according to the opinion of those who teach that only a limited fruit is received from the Mass, namely, that which the divine disposition has determined; yet he himself had said above (no. 352) that this opinion rests upon no solid reason. But according to the more probable and most common opinion, of which there was discussion above (no. 352 with the note), each person would receive the whole fruit owed to him from each of the ten Masses. Therefore, when the tenth Mass had been offered in this manner, each would have received a fruit ten times greater than if one Mass had been applied for each individually.

357. QUESTION 5. How must the application be determined when stipends are given by many unknown persons, as commonly happens in pious pilgrimages?

Reply. The intention must be made for those who gave the earlier stipends. This is easily accomplished when the same priest is to satisfy all the obligations; nor does it hinder that he may happen to distribute a portion of the Masses to be celebrated to other priests, because he can distribute them in the same order in which he received them, and thus the application appears sufficiently determined. A greater difficulty seems to be present if a sacristan or another person has collected many stipends from diverse persons and distributes the commingled money to several priests, which is an ordinary and frequent case. For how, then, must the application of the Mass be made? I answer: nothing else must be done, nor can anything else morally be done, except that the application be made according to the temporal order in which the stipends were given by the faithful, in accordance with the axiom sometimes employed in a matter of justice: He who is prior in time is stronger in right. Indeed, it is not even necessary that the priest attend to this explicitly, since he is judged to will to act in this way, because natural equity demands it. Hence, if from a common fund, for example, from a box placed in the church, or from a distributor of Masses, you have received stipends for twenty Masses, no other care ought to rest upon you except that you say Mass twenty times according to the intention of the giver. The distributor himself is judged to have the same implicit intention, namely, successively to assign the stipends according to priority of time. The priest can, however, interrupt the aforesaid order by an express intention for some grave cause, for example, if some other Mass is urgent, or if he has received a larger stipend so that he should not delay the Mass, etc.

358. QUESTION 6. Is an application made for a living person whom you believe to be dead valid, if you were bound to celebrate for him only after he had died?

Reply. Entirely negatively. The reason is that the obligation bears upon making the application for the dead person in order to relieve his soul from the punishments of Purgatory; but that end is not obtained while the Sacrifice is offered for a living person. Hence, because of an error of this kind, the priest must suffer the loss of his stipend ³.

³ The Author's resolution perhaps regards a chimerical case. Whatever may be said of the probability of the case, the resolution, if considered in itself, can deservedly appear somewhat too severe. The reason is that the satisfactory fruit of the Sacrifice can benefit even a living person and exempt him from the punishments of Purgatory. Moreover, a living person is capable of, and shares in, those fruits also of which the dead are not capable. And from this comes the practice of some who, solicitously seeking this assistance for themselves, endeavor to have all or a large part of the Masses determined by them offered in advance while they are among the living.

— I. The Author of the Application. Only the priest offering the Mass validly applies it through his intention, nor is it in the power of any Superior efficaciously to change or impede that application: for it is an act of priestly power, whose value depends on the character.

— II. The Subject to Whom, Capable. The damned are entirely incapable. For the blessed, external worship and honors can be impetrated; and it already redounds to their honor that, on account of the gifts which God has lavished upon them, we give thanks to God.

Are all the rest capable? Before the Code this was not outside controversy. Several, for example Cardinal Billot, De Euch., thesis LV, denied that direct application of the Mass as a work worked could licitly or validly be made to those living who are outside the Church, whose proper good the sacrifice of the New Law is.⁽¹⁾ The same, however, conceded that sacrifice for the prosperity and peace of the Church indirectly redounds to the conversion of infidels and heretics, to whom, moreover, the Church can apply her impetration. Yet most admitted that the fruit of impetration could be shared by all wayfarers and by the souls of purgatory, and they doubted only concerning the fruit of satisfaction, whether or not the non-baptized were capable of it (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 212). Yet the sacrifice of the cross was offered for all, and the Mass is nothing but that sacrifice continued or renewed. Wherefore c. 809 has followed the more benign opinion, and tacitly admits that the Mass profits all wayfarers and souls of purgatory, since it permits that it be offered for all.

⁽¹⁾ Yet the same Cardinal Billot, l. c., thought that Mass could profit all, even non-baptized persons, who are in purgatory, since there, the distinction between the soul and the visible body of the Church being suppressed, all are simply of the mystical body of Christ.

— III. The Subject to Whom, Licit. The principle is: for every capable subject whom the Church does not exclude, it is lawful to offer the sacrifice. Now, in her new law, the Church in c. 809 excludes neither infidels nor non-Catholics. Yet from public application she excludes the excommunicated person: for him, therefore, it is lawful to apply Mass only privately and with scandal removed; but she simply excludes the vitandus, so that she permits Mass to be offered only for his conversion (c. 2262, §2). Wherefore even after death he is deprived of suffrages. But nothing stands in the way that solemn funeral rites be done for a catechumen.

Application is made privately when public pronouncement is omitted and the name of him for whom celebration is made is not expressed in the Mass (cf. Cappello, op. c., I, n. 620, 2).

The scandal to be removed here is especially the offense of the faithful who, in certain circumstances, conscious of the celebration having been made, would ascribe it to greed for profit or to a certain "indifferentism."

After c. 809, the various distinctions between heretics and infidels can now be passed over, distinctions which writers, relying on some particular responses of the Sacred Congregations, were accustomed to use, so that they spoke more severely about heretics and schismatics than about infidels (cf. Cappello, op. c., I, nn. 618, 619). But public celebration even for a ruler who has died in heresy is altogether prohibited (cf. briefs of Gregory XVI, February 16 and July 9, 1842, to the bishop of Augsburg and the abbot of the monastery of Scheyern, O.S.B.). But when he begins to reign, a solemn function for the prosperity of the kingdom can be arranged.

The things said thus far hold concerning the fruit of Mass from the work worked. But nothing prevents the priest and faithful from offering their celebration or participation in Mass as a good work for any living or deceased person who is not excluded by the nature of the thing.

A distinct question is raised, whether or not a stipend can be received from all (concerning which matter cf. de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei, p. 365 ff.). The solution depends on the very manner of understanding the stipend, concerning which there is treatment in t. II. Practically today the responses of the Holy See permit that, with scandal and all superstition set aside, a stipend be admitted from all for whom Mass can be offered (cf. also Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Hocedez, "Les fruits du sacrifice et le stipendium d'apres un livre recent," 1922, p. 522, etc.).

— IV. Conditions of the Application Itself. It is necessary that the application be objectively determined and made in due time.

1. For a confused application, for example, for someone out of ten, would be invalid. But determination can be made explicitly or implicitly, for example, as the Superior or sacristan has already established, as I noted in the little book. A disjunctive determination is admitted: according to the determination of the sacristan, if he shall have made any; but if not, in this way. It is validly made under a condition already fulfilled, but not under a future contingent condition: for him whom Titius, when asked, shall have wished; for him who first offers a stipend. Nor can it even be offered, as for a deceased person, for him who will die first. For God is judged to have adapted the efficacy of application to our human ways. Does the intention hold: according as God wills? Some deny it, because the celebrant seems to leave the determination to God; but others reply that the Mass is then applied by the celebrant to him to whom it is more pleasing to God that it be applied; and this will is certainly defined in God (cf. Noldin, III, 177, 3). By a like reason a Mass offered according to the mind of Christ or of the Blessed Virgin Mary is judged offered according to the intention more acceptable to Christ or to the Blessed Virgin Mary. But no doubt can be raised about the value of an application made for the soul more pleasing to God.

He who must satisfy several intentions can celebrate:

a) according to the order of priority of right: then in itself he first celebrates for him who first paid the stipend. Yet if there is a just cause for preferring some intention which is later in time, account is taken of this cause; and if several were equal in time and right, then several Masses seem to be offered for these together. Indeed they judge this to be the implicit intention of him who discharges several stipends; and an implicit intention suffices;

b) according to the order defined by the Superior or by the distributor. This also seems to be the implicit intention of the celebrant. Indeed if there is some contrariety or diversity between the direct intention of the celebrant and that of the Superior or distributor, the celebrant is to be thought rather to have accommodated himself to the order of the Superior or distributor. But lest disagreements of this kind arise, it will be better above all to will to celebrate according to the mind of the Superior or distributor, and, if these have established no order, according to the order of priority;

c) for all intentions at once. This certainly can be done for a definite and not excessive number of Masses which equally urge. And then that collective mode is best, since there are those who hold that the fruit of the Mass is not diminished for individuals because the Mass is offered collectively for several. But if the intentions urge unequally, care must be taken against the danger lest the more urgent be deprived of the full usefulness of the Masses. If too many intentions are joined in this way, satisfaction will not be made for several except too late. And if the number has not been defined, but always new intentions are added, some one intention will never obtain an entire Mass.

Wherefore the Sacred Penitentiary, December 7, 1892, while it declared that collective application is lawful, prudently added: "provided that satisfaction be made integrally for the Masses within the time prefixed by ecclesiastical practice, and that Masses which are offered for a certain day or for an urgent cause are not delayed."

And so by these reasons applications can be defined when stipends are given by many unknown persons, for example, are found placed in a common box. Nor does it matter if these intentions are divided among several priests. And approved authors, indeed the Sacred Penitentiary itself, in its response of December 7, 1892 (Analecta ecclesiastica, II, 33), interpret very benignly that obligation of defining the application, so that they judge that he satisfies who, thinking explicitly of no order, says individual Masses out of several accepted "according to the intention of the giver." Yet a tolerated use is one thing, a recommended use another. And certainly it cannot be denied that he will act more piously, more reverently toward the sacrifice of the Mass, more suitably to the mind of the offerers, who, according as there is supply, accepts or distributes Masses in such a way that the celebrants know what kind of application has been requested: for the sick, for the dead, in thanksgiving. Nor will it be useless for the same to be made conscious of a more liberal alms, so that they may respond to the munificence of the benefactor with greater attention and fervor.

Concerning this order of intentions, cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol., II, 157, and Casus, II, 207, 206; Ferreres, II, 459-461; Noldin, III, 177, 179.

— 2. Besides, application must be made in due time, that is, a) either before the sacrifice; and, because it has the character of donation, an application once made remains unless it is revoked, so that generally habitual application from an intention which, for example, was conceived at the beginning of the month suffices; b) or during the sacrifice. And because the sacrifice is not yet complete, an application which has been made between the first and the other consecration probably suffices.

Palmieri, Op. th., IV, 1040, indeed objects that this intention does not influence the whole sacrifice, since it arrives after part of its essence has passed. But the sacrifice is not composed of two successive essential parts; rather it is one action which is begun by the first consecration and perfected by the other. After the first consecration, the sacrifice does not yet exist, and therefore is not applied; simultaneously with the other consecration it exists and is applied. Made after the sacrifice, or after both consecrations, it does not hold, because the priest cannot suspend an effect which, when the sacrifice exists, is immediately produced.

— Corollaries or Scholia. 1. An application made to a living person whom you thought dead, of a Mass commanded for a deceased person, strictly speaking does not hold. For the end of destroying punishments which remain to be paid after death cannot be obtained by the Mass. Nevertheless, if the person is pious, whose faults before death can be judged to have been destroyed, the application of satisfactory fruit is more abundant and more certain if it is made to the living person than to the deceased. Therefore if you wished, which can easily be presumed, to attribute absolutely the satisfactory fruit to him whom you thought dead, you benefit him more than if you had awaited death. Wherefore then it can probably be supposed that the celebration is ratified by the offerer (cf. Noldin, III, 179, 3, and Cappello, I, 607, who seems to concede this more generally).

That opinion can be confirmed by this reason, that in a celebrant for a stipend the prevailing intention is deservedly supposed to be that of celebrating according to the mind of the offerer; but he who freely celebrates for obtaining some definite grace for someone will generally have the principal intention of celebrating for his good.

2. He who has conceived several intentions opposed to one another is judged to have applied the Mass to the prevailing one. But in itself the later intention prevails, even if the priest had been disposed in such a way that, if he had thought of the former, he would not have conceived another. In order that the later not prevail, it is necessary that the former will have been so absolute that it virtually invalidated the other in advance. But if this is not clear, nothing remains except that on the following day the priest celebrate for whichever of the two intentions has in reality remained inefficacious (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 356, 3).

And you should note well that one intention cannot prevail over another unless both concurred, or existed at the same time; therefore not if one, even through error, either did not yet exist or had been revoked or dismissed.

Examples. The prior intention is judged to prevail if it was owed on that day, while the other was free; if it was of continuing a Gregorian series, while the other intention, even for a stipend, could be deferred; if the celebrant applies a Mass accepted for a deceased person to a deceased woman through error; in this case the predominating intention is that of celebrating according to the intention of the petitioner (cf. Noldin, III, 179, 3, and Berardi, Praxis Confessarii, n. 3515).

3. If application has been omitted or made invalidly, the fruit from the work of the worker will profit the celebrating priest; from the work worked it will remain in the infinite treasury of the Church, unless you think that then, by the implicit intention of the celebrant, the Mass is applied to himself.

But the intention of the one giving or offering the stipend is judged to be this: that a Mass useless to him to whom it is applied should yield to his own good or that of his own, or of those to whom he is most obliged (cf. Lugo, d. 19, n. 225 ff.; Lehmkuhl, II, 255).

— Division of the Application among Several. 1. The Eucharistic, impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit of the Mass can in itself be divided and applied, some to some persons and others to others.

2. Yet he who must sacrifice from justice for some intention is permitted to subtract nothing from the solid fruit, and only, with the integrity of application to this intention preserved, can he conceive another.

3. He who must apply Mass only from obedience, or by statute of an institute, seems to several, for example Bucceroni, III, 621, and Gury after Gobat, able to divide the fruits, because this is done with the end of the law intact, and the obligation is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Therefore a Mass prescribed for someone other than a deceased person could besides be applied for liberating a soul; one prescribed in thanksgiving will have left free the disposition concerning the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit.

Yet the souls of the dead are aided more if, together with the satisfactory fruit, you apply also the impetratory fruit to them, especially since some think that the application of the satisfactions of Christ is made through impetration. And so there will almost always be reason for acting otherwise, so that the author of the benign opinion, Gobat, confesses that he never used the same.

4. He who is held only by a liberal promise is hindered by no obstacle from division of the fruits among intentions which have been freely undertaken at the same time and are of diverse character, such as of thanksgiving and of satisfaction for the deceased. For the priest is judged to have promised what is the minimum. Indeed some permit that he who has promised the sacred rite to ten persons fulfill those promises by one sacred rite. But since today the opinion concerning the extensive infinity of application is much less received in the schools, and he who promised the sacred rite to one person is not understood merely to give a part of a sacred rite already promised or to be promised to others, he must be said to deceive the promisees who does not simply open his mind, by which he thinks of offering one sacred rite for several together.

5. But he who has vowed the sacred rite is held according to his own intention.

— What it is to sacrifice in a second or third intention is shown by the things just said. It tends to this, that, with the integrity of the first application preserved under every respect, you apply the special fruit by a subsidiary intention, insofar as you subtract nothing from the first, or if the first has been frustrated; or even that you ask God that, notwithstanding the usefulness of it for him for whom the sacred rite is primarily offered, he nevertheless, in consideration of the sacrifice, will to bestow also this grace on another. By this latter reason, a second intention scarcely differs from a special commemoration made in the Memento, except that application must precede consecration.

— V. Efficacy of the Application. 1. The Mass is propitiatory and satisfactory insofar as it effects or impetrates the application of the satisfactions and merits of the cross (cf. Billot, Euch., thesis 55). If the principal impetrating cause, or Christ, is considered, the effect of the Mass is absolutely infallible. If the object which is requested is considered, because from its institution it is directed definitely to the remission of sins, it infallibly, as regards the destruction of faults, confers actual helps by which man disposes himself either to expiate venial faults, or to obtain justifying and sanctifying grace through the use of the sacrament of penance, whether in reality or in desire; and it infallibly remits several punishments owed for pardoned faults. Other things requested are not obtained infallibly, unless they are expedient for salvation and are according to the ordinary laws of Providence. With attention to the subject, punishments are not remitted except those which, because of faults dismissed, are owed by him who is in the state of grace. The other effects also demand disposition; but what sort it must be is less clear. As we said in Quaestiones De religione, chapter De oratione, n. 24, begun penance, or conversion to God, seems required.

2. Defect of disposition also diminishes the force of application. Indeed in the deceased of purgatory the present dispositions are excellent. But their capacity can vary according to the degree of their charity or the devotion and faith which they had on earth.

3. Finally, the application of Mass is made infallibly to that living disposed person for whom it is offered. But is it made infallibly to that soul of purgatory for whom Mass is said? Some affirm this, for example C. Billot, l. c.; Bucceroni, III, 613 bis. Others, however, whom Genicot follows, II, 222, deny the same: for there can be just causes in the past life because of which God does not will the satisfactions of the cross to profit them here and now, unless perhaps he is appeased by several sacred rites offered and satisfactory works of the living. This opinion more easily explains the use of very frequently offering the sacred rite for the same soul.

— Suffrages before Death. Those are in no way to be disapproved, indeed they are to be praised, who, while they live, anticipate suffrages for themselves by sacred rites already celebrated. For a living man certainly shares all the fruits, while concerning the deceased it is less clear whether or not any fruit besides the satisfactory profits them. A living man can also assist at Mass and even by this reason be an offerer. He also in itself merits more, while he himself deprives himself of stipends, rather than merely burdening his inheritance with that burden. Add the greater security about faithful fulfillment of the burdens (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 1044, and Cappello, I, 607). Benedict XV himself embraced these reasons in a letter which, on May 31, 1921, he wrote in the form of a Brief concerning the sodality of the Good Death (Tinchebray): "It is especially to be considered that the fruits which are received from the sacred rite profit men far more abundantly while living than after death, since they are applied to the former, if well disposed and arranged, more directly, more certainly, and more abundantly than to the latter. Hence it comes about that, with the gift of perseverance, we should seek for ourselves the faculty of obtaining, while still living, both the appeasing of God's justice and the punishment which would remain for us in the fire of purgatory either wholly removed or at least greatly diminished. But if sufficiently many forgetful and ungrateful men have been accustomed to commit this, that they neglect to have the august Sacrifice offered for the expiation of the souls of those whom they seemed to hold most dear, there are in greater number those who, with grave loss of spiritual utilities, are ignorant of this: that the sacrifice of Mass which they themselves, while living, shall have had offered, will profit them much more than that which their heirs, relatives, or friends shall have commanded to be offered for their relief after death" (A. A. S., 13, 344).

Yet it is clear that those suffrages avail for punishments owed at the time when they are offered, but not for extinguishing future debts.

For the sake of clarity, this article is divided into two paragraphs: 1. on the manner of application; 2. on those for whom the Mass can be applied.

1596. APPLICATION is the intention of the mind by which the priest designates the person whom he wishes to become participant in the fruit of the Sacrifice. Concerning this application THREE things are asked: 1. whether it is required, so that the Sacrifice may profit the faithful; 2. what sort it ought to be; 3. for whom it can be made. Hence the following:

1597. Principles. I. That the special fruit of the Mass fall to him for whom it is offered, the application of the celebrant is NECESSARY. - The reason is that this fruit, proceeding from the Sacrifice insofar as it is the action of Christ, is strictly owed to no one; therefore, unless it is specially applied, it comes to no one.⁴

It is said 1. that the special fruit of the Mass; for the most general and general fruit, as also the most special, does not require application, since the faithful and the priest, insofar as they are offerers, certainly always perceive it.⁵

It is said 2. the application of the celebrant is necessary. For application is altogether proper to the celebrant, because it is an act of the power of Order. "Whence, if a Religious applies a Mass against the will of the Superior, he indeed applies illicitly, but validly; because the subject, with respect to the power of Order which he then uses, does not lie under the Prelate."⁶

It is asked: Whether the priest can apply the MOST SPECIAL fruit to others?

Resp. It is controverted, but authors more commonly deny. Therefore, since the application of this fruit is very uncertain, the following proposition was deservedly condemned by Alexander VII: "A doubled stipend can licitly be accepted by a priest for the same Mass, by applying to the one asking a part even of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself, and this after the decree of Urban VIII."⁷

1598. II. That application of the Mass be valid, it ought to be made before consecration, through an INTENTION at least habitual, and in some way determined. Thus commonly. - Therefore THREE CONDITIONS are required, namely:

1. It ought to be made before consecration, at least of the second species, lest it be exposed to danger of nullity; because the Sacrifice produces its effect while it is being completed, nor is that effect suspended.⁸ But it is probable that the Sacrifice is completed by consecration alone, as we said above (n. 1589, q. 1).

2. An intention at least habitual is required; for just as interpretative intention does not suffice, so neither is actual or virtual required, but habitual suffices, that is, had and not revoked. "The reason is that application of Mass has itself after the manner of a verbal donation, which, once made, is valid until it is expressly revoked."⁹ Here it can be asked: what application is to be judged valid if the priest, unmindful of the prior intention, elicits a new one? Resp. That one which is recognized as predominant. Therefore if the prior application was more universal and revocatory of the later, it is valid. If each were equal, the later would prevail, as happens in a testament. In doubt, it suffices that the priest on another occasion apply the Sacrifice to him to whom it was not applied the first time. For it is certain that one or the other application was valid.¹⁰

3. A determined intention is required, at least implicitly; for otherwise there would not be a reason why the fruit would fall to one rather than to another. But implicit determination suffices, because this, by some general term, already reaches persons in particular.

1599. Hence: 1. The application is valid if you say: "I offer this Sacrifice for him who gave the stipend"; "for whom the Superior wishes the Mass to be made"; "for whom the foundation requires"; "for the greatest sinner"; "for the soul afflicted by the graver temptation"; "for the soul of Purgatory more deserted than the rest, or more pleasing to God"; "for all the souls of Purgatory"; "for him to whom I am held to apply"; "for the person, or intention written or determined in the mind, at the beginning of the week," etc. - On the contrary, that application is not valid: "I offer that God, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, may apply, or may wish to apply, this Mass"; the reason is that, from the institution of Christ, it belongs to the priest, not to God or the Blessed Virgin Mary, to apply or determine the Sacrifice.¹¹

2. If someone accepts a stipend from ten persons for as many Masses, he does not seem to satisfy by applying individual Sacrifices for individuals indeterminately. But if he intended to apply each Mass to all those ten persons, by applying to each one the tenth part of each Mass, he satisfies well; because the fruit is divisible.¹²

3. If stipends have been received confusedly from diverse persons, the application is sufficiently determined if it is made according to the order in which the stipends were accepted, according to the axiom: "he who is prior in time is stronger in right." Whence, if you have accepted twenty stipends in this way, no other care is incumbent upon you, except that you make Mass twenty times, to the intention of the giver. Yet interruption can intervene, provided the Masses are celebrated within the due time.

4. Application under a condition already fulfilled is valid, for example: if Peter is dead, I apply for his soul; but not under a future contingent condition, for example: I apply to him for whom Titius, when asked, shall have wished.¹³

It is asked: Whether application to the intention of him who is going to offer the first stipend is valid?

Resp. Such application is certainly illicit, from the prohibition of Clement VIII, which Paul V promulgated on November 15, 1605, forbidding this custom "as dangerous under several names, liable to scandals of the faithful, and excessively aberrant from the ancient custom of the Church." Indeed, not rarely it would be invalid, for example if afterwards a stipend were offered for liberation from an illness, etc., which did not yet exist while the Mass was being applied; for, that this application be valid, the fruit of the Sacrifice would have to remain suspended until the existence of the illness, which does not seem credible. Nevertheless, if the priest foresees that shortly Masses are going to be requested from him for a deceased person, he can apply them meanwhile, and afterwards receive the stipends; because in this case they are already offered for a determined person.¹⁴

1600. III. The Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered both for the faithful LIVING, whether just or sinners, and for the DEAD in Christ and not yet fully purged. Thus Trent.¹⁵ - It is said: for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged; for it can be offered neither licitly nor validly for the damned, who are irrevocably separated from the Body of Christ. And the same must be said of children dead without Baptism, because these also have been constituted in an immutable state.¹⁶ But neither can it be offered for the Blessed, since they have already attained the end to which the fruits of the Mass are ordained. Yet it is licit to celebrate Masses in their honor, namely to this end, that thanks may be paid for the benefits which have been conferred on them by God, and that their patronage may be implored, or in other words, that they may deign to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we keep on earth.¹⁷

As regards the living, Mass, by reason of itself and with respect to valid application, can be offered for all human beings, no otherwise than the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. But if it ought not to be applied for some, this must be referred solely to the prohibition of the Church. Wherefore let there be the following:

1601. Questions. Q. 1. Whether it is licit to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the EXCOMMUNICATED?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. It is not licit for excommunicated persons to be avoided. Yet licitly "a priest can offer the action of sacrificing, insofar as it depends on the private merit of the one operating, for such an excommunicated person, or remember him in particular in the Memento."¹⁸

2. It is licit for tolerated excommunicated persons, according to the more probable opinion. "The reason is that favorable laws are to be understood with every breadth. Therefore when it was conceded to the faithful to communicate with the tolerated, it was also conceded to offer public prayers for them; for to communicate imports this also, as is had from cap. 28 and cap. 38, de sent. excomm."¹⁹ - And these things are valid both for the living and for the dead.

Q. 2. Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for INFIDELS, HERETICS, and SCHISMATICS?

Resp. 1. For these LIVING persons, especially for their conversion, it can be offered; for they are capable of at least impetratory fruits, and the certain prohibition of the Church extends itself only to excommunicated persons to be avoided, among whom the aforesaid are not to be numbered. It was requested: "Whether it is licit for priests to celebrate Mass for the intention of Turks and other Infidels, and to accept alms from them for the application of the Mass? - And the S. C. S. OFF. responded, July 12, 1865: "Affirmatively, provided scandal is not present, and nothing is specially added in the Mass, and, with respect to the intention, it is clear that nothing evil, or of error, or of superstition underlies in the Infidels bringing the alms."²⁰

Resp. 2. But indeed it is not licit publicly or solemnly to celebrate Mass for these same DEAD persons, even if the condition were added: if perhaps they died in good faith in only material heresy. "For these more secret mysteries of divine grace by no means pertain to the external judgment of the Church."²¹ And the general rule is that to those to whom ecclesiastical burial has had to be denied, other public suffrages of the Church are also denied. But it is licit privately to pray for them under the Memento of the dead in solemn Mass, or even secretly to apply the Mass of the day, not of Requiem, provided scandal is avoided. Thus, for example, a priest to whom a stipend for some heretic in particular is offered will be able to respond that he can apply the Mass of Requiem for all the faithful departed, with the intention of helping also the soul of that deceased person, if this is accepted before God.

Q. 3. Whether it is licit to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for the FAITHFUL who died in the act of sin?

Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless, if ecclesiastical burial is to be denied to someone, Mass ought not to be celebrated publicly, that is, with the people knowing, for him. - Recall the things said at n. 1387.

Q. 4. Whether the Mass profits the DEAD from the infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Some deny; but others more truly and more commonly affirm. The reason is that, since it is of faith from Trent that Mass is usefully offered for the dead, this cannot happen except ex opere operato, that is, from the promise of Christ, which indeed is had in those words: "This is my Blood of the new Testament, which will be poured out for many unto remission of sins."¹

Q. 5. Whether a Mass OF REQUIEM profits the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

St. Thomas responds:² "On the part of the Sacrifice offered, it profits the deceased equally, of whatever Mass it is said; but on the part of the prayers, that one profits more in which there are prayers determined for this; yet this defect can be recompensed through the greater devotion either of him who says the Mass, or of him who orders it to be said, or again through the intercession of the Saint whose suffrage is implored in the Mass."

Q. 6. Whether, on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, Mass can be applied for SOME particular deceased person?

Resp. Affirmatively, from the decrees of the S. R. C. on August 4, 1663, and September 2, 1741,³ where it was said that on that day "Sacrifices can be applied at will by priests celebrating, namely either for all the faithful departed, or for some only." Wherefore nothing prevents a stipend from being accepted for that Mass.⁴

Q. 7. Whether one celebrating satisfies by a Mass OF REQUIEM to the intention of the giver, if what this is is wholly unknown?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the declaration of the S. R. C. on November 29, 1856.⁵ Hence it is concluded that a Mass of Requiem is validly applied for a living person; which also will be done licitly if a sufficient reason accedes, for example if other vestments are not had.

Q. 8. Whether a priest satisfies if, thinking him for whom he ought to celebrate as dead to be now dead, he celebrates for him while still living?

Resp. Negatively; because the error is essential. For each person, while he lives, can provide for his soul in various ways, for example by gaining indulgences, etc.; not likewise after death.⁶

Q. 9. Whether the fruits of the Mass can be DIVIDED, so that the impetratory fruit is applied to one, the satisfactory fruit to another?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion of the Doctors. Therefore in gratuitous Masses, the priest can divide the fruits at will. In Masses owed from obedience or fidelity, he can do this for that part of the fruit which he is not held to apply. Hence, for example, if a Mass is to be celebrated for thanksgiving, he can apply the satisfactory and impetratory fruit at will. But in Masses owed from stipend, this is not licit, since the whole applicable fruit is owed to the one giving the alms.⁷

Q. 10. What if the application is made TO NO ONE, or to one INCAPABLE?

Resp. The fruit, in this case, remains in the treasury of the Church. "But in practice, when it is doubted whether he for whom we offer is capable of the fruit or not, in gratuitous Masses it is advised to apply them either to ourselves, or to another under condition: if the person to whom they are applied is not capable. But in Masses owed from stipend, because probably the fruit falls to the benefit of the relatives of the one offering, from his implicit will, therefore then we cannot apply the fruit to whomever we wish, except under condition, lest prejudice be done to him to whom the obligation of applying is present."⁸

NB. Concerning Mass celebrated ON A PRIVILEGED ALTAR, see below, n. 1743.

The application of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the intention by which the priest wills that the fruit of the Sacrifice yield to the advantage of a certain person.

1318. Principles. - I. In order that a part of the general fruit be perceived, the application of the priest is not necessary; but it suffices that he wish to celebrate according to the mind of the Church: for such an application is always implicitly included in the general intention of the celebrant. Likewise, in order that the most special fruit come to the priest himself, it is not necessary that he wish to apply it specially to himself; for this is always of itself applied to him. Indeed there are those who think that this fruit is so proper to him that it cannot be applied to another.

II. Nevertheless the application of the priest is required, in order that the special or ministerial fruit come to someone. For the priest, and indeed he alone, bears the person of Christ; therefore, just as he alone in the person of Christ offers the Sacrifice for others, so also he alone applies its fruit.

III. The special fruit, applied to no one or to one incapable, remains in the general treasury of the Church.¹

1319. Questions. - Query 1° Must the application of the fruit of the Mass be actual?

Resp. Negatively; but it suffices that it be habitual, namely that once made it is not retracted. The reason is because this application is made by way of donation, which is valid until it is revoked. - Nevertheless it is expedient to make the application of the Mass before it is begun. But if the priest has not done this before the Consecration, afterwards he cannot specially apply the Sacrifice to anyone.²

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

Resp. In general it cannot be defined. Let the priest see what sort of intention was predominant in his mind. For the rest, in practice it matters little; for since either one or the other is certainly valid, it will be enough another time to apply the Sacrifice to him to whom it was not applied.

Query 3° Must the intention of the celebrant be explicitly determined?

Resp. Negatively. For it suffices that it be determined implicitly. Thus the application is valid if you say: I offer this Sacrifice for him who gave the stipend, - for whom the Superior wishes the Sacrifice to be made, - for whom the foundation demands, - for the greatest sinner, - for the soul afflicted by graver temptation, - for the suffering soul needing greater help, or more pleasing to God, - for all the souls of Purgatory, - for him to whom I am held to apply, - for the person or intention determined by writing or by mind at the beginning of the week, etc. - On the contrary, this application is not valid: I offer, that God may apply this Sacrifice.¹

Query 4° If a priest has received stipends from ten persons, does he satisfy by celebrating with a confused and indeterminate intention?

Resp. In no way, negatively; because a determinate intention at least to a certain person is required; otherwise there is no reason why the Mass should be applied to one rather than to another, and thus it would be applied to no one. - Nevertheless, if he intended to apply any Mass whatever to those ten persons, by applying to each one a tenth part of any Mass whatever, he would satisfy the obligation; because the fruit of the Sacrifice is divisible, and to each one is assigned what is owed to him: for each one, perceiving in each of the ten Masses a tenth part of the fruit, when the tenth Sacrifice has been done, has already obtained the whole fruit owed to him.¹

Query 5° How is the application to be determined, when stipends are given by many unknown persons?

Resp. The intention is to be made for those who first gave the stipends. This easily succeeds when the same priest is going to satisfy all the obligations; nor does it stand in the way that he perhaps distributes part of the Masses to be celebrated to other priests: because he can distribute them in the same order in which he received them; and thus the application seems sufficiently determined. Greater difficulty seems to be present if a sacristan or another person has collected many stipends from diverse persons, and distributes the mixed money to several priests; which case is obvious and frequent. How then is the application of the Mass to be made? I respond: nothing else is to be done, nor can anything else morally be done, than that the application be made according to the order of time in which the stipends were given by the faithful, according to the axiom which is sometimes used in the matter of justice: He who is prior in time is stronger in right. Indeed it is not necessary that the priest explicitly attend to this; since he is judged to wish to act thus, since natural equity demands it. Hence, if from a common heap, or from a distributor of Masses, you have received stipends for 20 Masses, no other care ought to fall upon you, except that you make the Sacrifice twenty times according to the intention of the giver. The distributor himself is judged to have the same implicit intention, that he distribute the stipends successively according to antiquity of time. Nevertheless the priest can interrupt the aforesaid order by express intention from some just cause, e.g. if some other Mass urges, or he has received a greater stipend that the Sacrifice not be deferred, etc.

350. A threefold fruit of the sacrifice is distinguished. - The effects of the sacrifice, insofar as it is propitiatory or impetratory ex opere operato, are called fruits, of which a threefold portion is distinguished:

1. General, which comes to the whole Church.

For a) from the communion of Saints the individual good works of the members of the Church profit all the other members; a fortiori the fruit of the oblation of Christ, who is their head; b) Christ, who on the cross offered Himself as mediator for all, here as head of the Church offers Himself to apply the merits of the cross; whence He offers Himself directly for all the members of the Church of whom He is the head: "for all faithful Christians living and dead," and indirectly for all others, that they may become members of the Church, as the Missal says: "for our salvation and that of the whole world." - Yet not all receive the same part, but a greater part according to greater dignity, sanctity and disposition, participation or concurrence in the sacrifice.

2. Special, which comes to those for whom the priest intends to celebrate.

He can also apply this to himself, if he celebrates for no one else.

3. Most special, proper to the priest, who receives it even if he celebrates for others: for to him there comes not only fruit from the work of the one working, because he offers in his own name or in the name of the Church, but also ex opere operato, because he offers in the name of Christ, whose place he holds.

This is probably so proper to the priest that he cannot even validly renounce it (Hebr. VII, 27), and certainly it is not licitly ceded to another for a second stipend, both because from the contract the priest is obliged to a certainly valid application (n. 349), and because the Church prohibits it in the condemnation of proposition 8 by Alexander VII.¹

¹ "A priest can lawfully receive 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."

351. Principle I. For receiving the general or most special fruit, no application is required; contrariwise, for receiving the special fruit. - For from the very will of Christ the general or most special fruit is derived into those who, placing no obstacle, are capable of it; - on the contrary, the special portion of the fruits has been left to the free application of the priest.

This is established a) from the universal practice of the faithful, approved by the Church (C. Trid., sess. 23, c. 1; Pius VI, bull Auct. fid., n. 30), who, for example after giving a stipend, ask that the sacrifice be offered specially for themselves to a determinate end, and expect the fruit not from the work of the priest working, but from the work of Christ;

b) the sacrifice is a real prayer; but prayer is of itself indifferent and not determined to such a person; whence unless it is specially applied, it does not profit. This application must be made by the priest: for he who has the power of offering also has the power of applying the fruit of the sacrifice.

Let three things be observed:

1. The priest has the power of applying the fruits of the sacrifice by force of his ordination; whence this cannot be taken from him by mandate of a superior or by sentence of the Church, and accordingly he always validly applies it to whomever he wishes.

2. The priest can validly apply the fruits to several, indeed divide the fruit among them, so that, for example, to one the sacrifice is applied for the remission of sin, to another for impetrating grace; and if he is bound to apply it to one, he validly but illicitly divides the fruits.

3. But if he applies it to no one or only to one incapable, the fruit will remain in the treasury of the Church.

352. Principle II. For the application of the special fruit there is required and suffices a habitual will, absolute or equivalent to this, at least implicitly determined to a certain person or a certain end. - It is said:

1. Habitual, i.e., actual, once had, which nevertheless has not been retracted, even if it is so past that it does not move one to placing the present act.

For application is a donation or transfer of the fruit; but a donation, even one made a long time beforehand and interrupted by many acts, is valid, provided it has not been revoked. Whence he who yesterday promised Peter tomorrow's sacrifice, but today does not think about this, validly applies. - Nevertheless a merely interpretative intention does not suffice, which someone would have had and by which he would have willed to apply the fruits in the event that he had adverted to this or that; for in fact he did not will nor apply.

2. Absolute, or equivalent to this, i.e., conditioned concerning the past or concerning the present.

For an application conditioned concerning the future, because it suspends the intention, makes it so that the sacrifice is not offered for that intention: thus one who applied it to someone under the condition that afterward another should will it, or that he would offer a stipend, or that he would die first.² Nevertheless he would validly apply it for him whom he knows in fact already wishes to ask for a Mass, unless it is for an effect toward which the sacrifice would not yet help.

² But if he applied under the condition: if God knows it is going to be, the application would be at least doubtfully valid, as was said in n. 84.

3. At least implicitly determined to a certain person or a certain end; otherwise no application would be made.

Thus, for example, if someone were to apply it to one out of ten Masses to be read, not determining to which, or to him to whom God or the Blessed Virgin wills to apply it, because God or the Blessed Virgin applies it to no determinate one, leaving that to the priest; on the contrary, several say that it is valid if someone were to will to apply it to him for whom God or the Blessed Virgin would rather or would prefer that he apply it. - Nevertheless it is not required that the priest explicitly know and will the person, sex, or necessity, but it suffices that he will implicitly, by intending, for example, the Mass which another priest, the sacristan, or the superior intends, - provided that he has a determinate will, - or which a foundation or stipend requires, or which he has noted for himself in a notebook, or for him who first gave the stipend, or according to the order in which stipends came to him, or for the greatest sinner, for the soul afflicted by graver temptations, for the soul in purgatory most abandoned or nearest to redemption, etc.; so also the application is valid if someone erroneously says Mass for a deceased man in place of a deceased woman, because the error is merely accidental.

But if several stipends, for example twenty, have been collected by several persons or offered by various unknown persons, for example on the altar of a church, it suffices to say those Masses according to the order established by him who distributes them, or according to the order of those who gave the stipends, which intention he is judged implicitly to have who so many times says Mass according to the intention of the giver, because he who is prior in time is stronger in right; - but also all the Masses can be said according to the intention of all, according to the proportion of the monies or Masses which belong to each, because since the fruit is divisible, it is the same to give twenty Masses together to all as to give one Mass to each one, and therefore, when the number of Masses has been celebrated, the several persons will have received what is due to them (S. Poen., Dec. 7, 1892).

353. Observations. - 1. In the case in which a priest has made a double contrary application, if he was mindful of the prior intention, the second is valid; if unmindful, one must attend to which will is predominant: it will be the former, if he willed to apply absolutely, even if afterward he intended something else; it will be the second, if there was a reason for changing, for example a sudden necessity, the offering of a stipend; if each was equally efficacious and absolute, the second seems to prevail, because it is actual and stronger toward the sacrifice. In practice there is no difficulty: for let it be offered on the next day for the intention to which satisfaction was not made.

2. An anticipated application, for him who will first ask or will give a stipend, is illicit (can. 825, 1), both because the faithful do not ask for a Mass already celebrated but one to be celebrated, and because the priest exposes the giver to the danger of being deprived of the fruit: for he for whom the Mass is offered can not yet be rightly disposed, or the cause for which it is requested can not yet exist, for example, if it is for the first person in the parish who will die, or for liberation from an infirmity not yet contracted. Whence the S. C. C. prohibited this, Nov. 25, 1605.

3. Nevertheless, if the priest foresees that Masses are to be requested for someone already dead, he would validly offer them now, because they are offered for a determinate person disposed and with the cause already existing, and the priest would incur only the danger of losing the stipend. But under the law now in force this is prohibited, and accordingly illicit (can. 825, 1); and therefore, that in the case he may licitly retain the offered stipend, he must obtain the consent of the offerer and consequently is bound to declare to him that he has already applied.

4. Founded Masses are validly and licitly anticipated when they are to be said once, twice, or three times in a week or in a month, but only in honor of God or of the Saints, or for the repose of the soul of a man already dead; on the contrary, illicitly if they are founded also for future deceased persons, as for the deceased of the parish or for those successively dying, or if they are fixed to certain days, for example Saturday in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Friday in honor of the Passion, or if they were founded for the convenience of the people lest on certain days Mass be lacking, or if in the foundation this was expressly prohibited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 8. What is a second intention in Mass?

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

XVII. The intention of applying the Mass for the offerers is required. A habitual one does not suffice, whatever some may say; nor is an actual one necessary; but a virtual one suffices. Neither lawful nor valid is the application of a Mass for him whom God knows will first give a stipend; and La Croix says from Bassaeus that Clement VIII forbade this, which decree I have not seen.

A certain pastor, whom we may call Practicus, has many Mass stipends left to his church, and is obliged to a considerable extent to have them attended to by brother priests. As the stipend for some of these Masses, however, does not come up to the amount of one dollar, this being the usual stipend in his diocese, he has difficulties in placing them. He helps himself in this embarrassment by using the surplus of other more liberally feed Masses to make up the deficiency and to bring the stipend up to the usual amount. Thus he finds himself enabled to have all the Masses attended to. He satisfies his conscience with the argument that he does not retain any of the money, nor any part thereof, but that he is turning over the whole of it, though the amount of some particular stipend is in some cases divided and goes to different hands.

The question whether such a procedure is permissible must be answered with "No."

It is the law that the full stipend—certain exceptions need not be taken into consideration here—must be handed over to the one performing the obligation, and it is not permissible to use the excess of one stipend to make up the deficiency of another. The person donating the higher stipend expects the celebrant to receive the full amount donated, his intention evidently being the desire that his larger offering bring greater benefit. St. Alphonsus writes on this subject as follows (Lib. vi. 322):

The intention of the giver is not only that Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend; for when he gives a generous offering, he gives it with the intention that he may receive a more abundant fruit from the Mass to be celebrated; therefore he who, after handing over a smaller stipend, has another celebrate it sins against justice, not because he defrauds the person giving the alms of the fruit of the Mass—for he already receives the fruit here from his previously formed pious disposition—but because he does not carry out the giver’s intention, by which he wills that the Mass from which he receives the fruit be celebrated for such a stipend.

No objection could, of course, be had if the pastor hand a number of both under as well as overpaid Masses to one and the same priest, in whose hands they would then average to the stipend usual in the diocese.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE XXII is briefly answered by Canons 809 and 2262 of the Code which state that Holy Mass may be applied for any of the living or the dead except for those excommunicated or separated from the union with the Church, as all members of Protestant sects are. But even for these while they are living Holy Mass may be said privately, due care being taken that no scandal is given to the faithful. But for those who are excommunicated by name, through a decree of either the bishop or the Holy See, the Holy Sacrifice can be offered up only for their conversion.

Titius, a parish priest, receives from a pious Catholic lady three Mass stipends, with the request that he say three Masses for the following three intentions: One for her brother, who died without baptism, although he was a man of upright life, who feared God and departed from evil; one for an Episcopalian friend, who died in good faith and to all appearances in the grace of God; and one for the soul of her late husband, who was an "excommunicatus vitandus," who at the moment of death gave unmistakable signs of repentance, although on account of the suddenness of his taking off, there was no time to call a priest.

Titius accepted the stipends and said three Requiem Masses, in serting the names of the dead persons in the orations of the Mass. When taken to task for this by another priest, Titius replied that the sacrifice of the Mass may be offered up for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered up. As Christ died for all men, therefore Mass may be said for all men.

1. For whom may the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be offered?

2. Did Titius do right in this matter, and what is to be said about the reason he gave for saying Mass for everybody?

3. Ought Titius to return the stipends?

I. It is evident from the Council of Trent (s. XXII) that Mass may be said for all the living who are baptized and living in communion with the Church, as well as for the souls in purgatory. There is no difficulty on that point. The difficulty arises when there is question of saying Mass for persons excommunicated, or for heretics and schismatics, or for the unbaptized. May a priest say Mass for any of these latter, whether living or dead?

Considered in itself, and apart from the legislation of the Church, there is no reason why Mass may not be said for any and all persons, since the sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all mankind. But inasmuch as the Mass is an act of public worship, its celebration comes under the laws and discipline of the Church. Hence in regard to saying Mass, the general rule is laid down that Mass may be said for any and all persons, except those for whom the Church by an express and incontrovertible law (for this is materia odiosa) forbids it to be said.

2. The act by which a priest offers up Mass for any particular person may be a public act, or it may be semi-public, or it may be an altogether private act; that is to say, the act by which the priest applies the special fruit of the Mass, or its ministerial fruit, as some theologians call it, to some private individual may be a public, a semi-public, or a private act. It is a public act when the priest announces to the faithful that Mass will be said for such or such a person, or when he inserts the name of the person in the orations of the Mass. It is a semi-public act when the priest accepts the stipend and promises to say Mass for the person named, although he says nothing to the faithful about it. The act is a private act if the priest's intention in offering the Mass be known only to God.

Now with these observations in mind, let us discuss the question of offering Mass for the living.

1. The Church forbids the public offering of Mass for an excommunicatus vitandus (Ita omnes. Bened. XIV).

2. The Church allows Mass to be said for a heretic or a schismatic provided the Mass be said for the express purpose of obtaining for the heretic or the schismatic the grace of conversion to the true faith (dec. Holy Off., April 19, 1837).

3. The Church allows Mass to be said for an unbaptized person, provided the saying of it gives no scandal to the faithful, and that nothing special is added in the Mass, and provided there be nothing bad or false or superstitious in the intention of the person offering the stipend, if such person be unbaptized (dec. July 21, 1865). Thus Mass may be said for an unbaptized sick person that he be restored to health, or for an unbaptized person condemned to death, that he recover his liberty, or escape the death penalty (Holy Off., March 11, 1848).

Regarding Mass for the dead the Holy See was asked the following questions:

1. Is it lawful to say Mass for those who die in open heresy, especially if it be known that you say Mass for them?

2. Is it lawful to say Mass for such persons if no one knows it except the priest and the person offering the stipend?

I. Both of these questions the Holy See answered in the negative. In neither case is it allowed to say Mass. From which we conclude that the Church makes no distinction between the public and the semi-public saying of Mass, but forbids both alike.

II. It is not lawful, under any circumstances, to say Mass for those who have died without baptism, “for the dead who depart from this life in their unbelief” (dec. Sept. 12, 1845).

III. It is not lawful to offer prayer in the name of the Church for an excommunicated person, if such person died while under the ban of excommunication, unless first absolved, no matter how contrite the person may have been at the hour of death, and even though before God he may have been absolved from the excommunication (c. 28 de sent. excomm.). The absolution from the excommunication must be first pronounced over their corpse, before Mass may be said for their soul.

IV. Titius did wrong in accepting the stipends, and saying Mass for the intention of the giver, and above all he did wrong in mentioning the names of the dead person in the orations of the Mass.

V. Titius is not bound to return the stipends he received for the Masses, because he did not sin against commutative justice. He did all that he promised to do, when he took the stipends. He sinned against the laws of the Church, by saying the Masses, but he did not sin against the virtue of commutative justice.

Mr. M. on his deathbed left Father Joseph $500 to say Masses for the repose of his soul. Half of this sum Father Joseph gave to another priest, a personal friend and a man in every respect above reproach, who, he knew, would say the Masses without fail. The two hundred and fifty Masses that Father Joseph kept himself he found it impossible to say within a year from the time he received them owing to the large number of nuptial and funeral Masses he was obliged to say. At the end of the year Father Joseph has still one hundred Masses to say for the repose of the soul of Mr. M. Father Joseph's particular friend, the priest, to whom he gave the other two hundred and fifty Masses to say, allowed himself to be persuaded to invest all the money he had, including this sum of $250 for Masses for the soul of Mr. M., in some real estate transaction and lost it all. He was taken sick a few months afterward and died, leaving no money and making no provision for the saying of the two hundred and fifty Masses given him by Father Joseph.

Father Joseph has heard something about a special decree regarding Mass stipends, issued last year by the Holy Father Pius X., and which imposes graver obligations in this matter than was formerly imposed by the moralists. He is much worried as to whether this new decree affects his case, and to what extent. And he would like to know what is his duty in regard to these Mass stipends which he received from Mr. M.

Father Joseph's query resolves itself into two points:

1. What must he do with the hundred Masses which he himself has left over at the end of one year from the time of receiving them? May he continue saying them, since it was not his fault that they are still unsaid?

2. Is Father Joseph responsible for the two hundred and fifty Masses which he gave to his friend, together with the stipends? "Videat ipse," he thinks, with regard to his friend. When he handed over the Masses, together with the stipends, to a responsible priest, he acted prudently and reasonably, and he does not see why he should still be held responsible. He has read in many a volume of "Casus Conscientiae," that if a hundred Mass stipends were stolen from a priest through no fault of his, before the Masses were said, the priest would not be bound to say them, because it would be unreasonable on the part of the donor to require this of him. In accepting the stipends for the Masses, either for himself or for others to say, he did not intend to be responsible for the money under all circumstances, but only to a reasonable and just extent.

Answer.—On May 11, 1904, Pope Pius X issued a special decree concerning "Missae manuales," to be binding on all priests throughout the world. These "Missae manuales" are the Masses that a priest receives, from day to day, from the faithful, to say for one intention or another, and for which he receives a stipend. "Who must say these Masses?" "When must they be said?" "To whom may they be given, in case the original recipient can not say them?" "In what sense is the original recipient still responsible for them, in case the priest to whom he gave them does not say them?" These are some of the questions which the Holy Father's instruction answers.

It may be well, therefore, before discussing Father Joseph's case, to give the several articles of the Pope's decree which refer to the matter in hand. The decree emanates from the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and is dated May 11, 1904. It is entitled: "Decretum de observandis et evitandis in Missarum manualium satisfactione."

Manual Masses, according to the decree, are all Masses that the faithful, from day to day, request a priest to say, at the same time offering him a stipend for the Mass, whether the stipend be given out of hand (brevi manu) or be provided for in the last will, or the estate be burdened with the obligation of having a certain number of Masses said from year to year, in perpetuum, provided only they may be said in any church, by any priest, as the head of the family may elect.

1. No priest may ask for or accept Mass stipends unless he is morally certain that he himself will be able to say the Masses within the time hereinafter fixed for acquitting that obligation; he must say such Masses personally, except he be a bishop ruling a diocese, or a prelate of a religious order having jurisdiction; if he be a bishop or a prelate the Masses may be said by the priests subject to such jurisdiction.

2. The ordinary time limit for saying a Mass for which a stipend has been accepted is one month; six months for one hundred Masses, and in similar proportion for larger numbers.

3. No priest is allowed to accept a larger number of stipends than he himself can probably satisfy within one year from the time of accepting them, unless with the explicit consent of the person offering the stipend.

4. After the lapse of a year from the date that the stipends were received, if through unforeseen circumstances there remain a considerable number of Masses unsaid, the obligation is to be placed in the hands of the bishop, together with the honorarium, unless it is clear that the delay is at least not contrary to the intention of the original donor of the Masses. In this matter the Holy Father burdens, "sub gravi" the consciences of those who are responsible for the Masses.

5. Those to whom a number of stipends has been committed, with the understanding that they may be given to other priests to say, may give them to any priests they have a mind to, provided they are certain, from personal knowledge, that these priests can and will say the Masses.

6. Those who have given the surplus stipends, for which they have been unable to say the Masses, to their Ordinary, may consider themselves free from all further obligation before God and the Church. But whoever commits the stipends received by him to other priests is responsible for them before God and the Church until he knows for certain that the Masses have been actually said; and if, through the loss or the miscarriage of the money, or through the death of the priest, or through any other accident, there remain any reasonable doubt as to whether the Masses were said, the original recipient of the Masses is bound in conscience to say them or to have them said.