The Sacrifice of the Mass

Question First. On the Nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

The eucharistic sacrifice is also customarily called the sacrifice of the Mass, by which name is signified the sacred rite according to which the eucharistic sacrifice must be offered by precept of the Church. Concerning the nature of the eucharistic sacrifice, in this place only those points of doctrine from dogmatic institutions are indicated which are necessary to know for solving moral questions.

162. Declarations. 1. Sacrifice in general can be defined: The offering of a sensible thing, legitimately instituted and made to God, by which through the alteration of that same thing we profess that God is the supreme Lord of all things and of our life and death.

a. Sacrifice in an improper sense is taken for any offering made to God, or for any internal or external act by which God is worshiped; thus it is said: a sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit,² and: offer to God the sacrifice of praise.³ Properly it is taken for a special offering or for a special act of religion, by which some external thing under a certain rite is offered to God and altered in attestation of His supreme dominion over the life and death of all.

b. Sacrifice by its own nature is a sign by which we signify that God, the absolute Lord of life and death, is worthy that our life should be destroyed in His honor; but we signify this by the destruction of that thing which is offered to God in sacrifice. This thing must be sensible, because sacrifice was instituted for exhibiting external worship to God. Public sacrifice must be instituted either by God or by public authority, because it is a common sign, which can be instituted only by legitimate and public authority. Through alteration: for the thing offered to God by an external rite must be altered either wholly or in part (by shedding, breaking, consumption), so that by this alteration the supreme dominion of God over our life may be signified.

2. In the Mass there is offered to God a true and properly so called sacrifice, which is called eucharistic: If anyone should say that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God . . . let him be anathema.⁴ Besides, in the sacrifice of the Mass all the conditions concur which are required for a true and properly so called sacrifice, as the dogmatic theologians show at length.⁵

The sacrifice of the Mass, by reason of the thing offered, does not differ from the bloody sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross: for in both the same body and blood of Christ is offered; but by reason of the manner of offering, the two differ. In the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered through consecration, i.e., the sacrificial action by which Christ is offered is consecration. But whether consecration is a sacrificial action for this reason, that through it the body and blood of Christ are placed separately under the species of bread and wine, or for this reason, that through it Christ is placed in the state of food and drink, dogmatic theologians dispute.⁶

¹ Benedict XIV, De sacrosancto sacrificio missae; N. Gihr, Das heilige Messopfer, 7th ed. (Freiburg, Herder, 1902).

² Ps. 50:19.

³ Ps. 49:14.

⁴ Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 1.

⁵ Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 852 ss.

⁶ Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 902 ss.

163. The essence of the eucharistic sacrifice. Theologians ask in what action the essence of the eucharistic sacrifice consists, namely whether its essence is had in consecration alone, or in consecration and reception together. Many were of this opinion, that not only consecration but also communion pertains to the essence of this sacrifice; yet today the opinion is almost common among theologians which teaches that consecration alone pertains to the essence, but communion to the integrity and perfection, of the eucharistic sacrifice. The reasons of the first are:

a. In consecration alone all things are already perfectly had which, from the definition of sacrifice, are required for the essence of the eucharistic sacrifice: for in consecration a sensible thing is offered to God by its proper minister according to legitimate institution through the alteration of the victim for acknowledging the supreme dominion of God.

b. The sacrifice of the Mass must be offered in the person of Christ, who is the principal offerer; but consecration alone is performed in the person of Christ, whereas reception is exercised by the priest in his own name, not in the person of Christ.¹ Yet communion pertains to integrity, because Christ under the eucharistic species is placed in the manner of food and drink; therefore communion is commanded by divine law: for after Christ in the Last Supper had said: take and eat, He added: do this in commemoration of Me,² by which words the reception of the Eucharist also is commanded. Therefore communion can never be omitted without grave sin.

a. The solution of this question has practical importance insofar as from it one must determine how long someone must assist at Mass in order to be said to have been present at it as to its substance. Namely, he who was present at the consecration was present at the sacrifice of the Mass as to its substance and becomes participant in the fruits of the sacrifice; nevertheless he does not satisfy the precept of the Church of hearing Mass, because the whole Mass is commanded. Besides, from this same solution is solved the question whether he who on a feast day comes to church after the consecration has been completed must assist at the remaining part of the Mass. Finally, the question is solved whether the application of the Mass made after consecration still avails.

beta. Since, therefore, not only consecration but also, by the precept of Christ, at least as an integral part, communion pertains to the eucharistic sacrifice, the celebrant must always communicate from his own sacrifice; nor is it licit for him to receive a host consecrated in another Mass or by another, and, for example, to place in the monstrance the host consecrated by himself. The same also must be said concerning the liturgical fraction of the host, which is a preparation for eating, namely that the same host which was consecrated together with the sacred chalice must be broken in the due manner and received by the celebrant, so that the integrity of the sacrifice may be perfect. Universally, all the ceremonies of the Mass ought of themselves to be performed with one and the same host, which the perfect integrity of the sacrifice demands and the rubrics of the Missal manifestly suppose. Therefore of itself the host just consecrated, not another consecrated beforehand, must be elevated to be adored.

gamma. Without a most grave cause it is not licit to take from the altar before communion the particles consecrated in the Mass, in order that they may be distributed to those about to communicate, both because they ought to remain on the altar until communion, and because from the same sacrifice first the celebrating priest and then the faithful ought to communicate. If, however, there were question of administering viaticum, when preconsecrated particles are lacking, it is licit to carry to the sick person before communion a particle consecrated in the sacred action itself.³ Likewise particles consecrated in the Mass are not to be placed away earlier, but are to be left on the altar until communion has been completed, because (although not essentially) they pertain to the sacrifice, which is completed only when communion has been completed.

¹ The chief reason of those who think that communion is necessary for the essence of the eucharistic sacrifice is this: because otherwise in the sacrifice of the Mass that destruction would not be found which is required for every sacrifice. It is clear that this reason has no weight. Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 897 ss.

² 1 Cor. 11:24.

³ Cf. Gury, Casus conscientiae, II, n. 262; Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., II, n. 130.

164. On the consecration of both species. In the same way they ask whether for the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass the consecration of both species is required, or whether the whole nature of the eucharistic sacrifice is had even in the consecration of one. The opinion seems to be true according to which it is affirmed that for the essence of the sacrifice the consecration of both species is required. And indeed, it belongs to the nature of the eucharistic sacrifice that it be the unbloody representation of the bloody sacrifice on the cross; but the representation of the bloody sacrifice is not a Mass except through the consecration of both species: for the sacrifice of the Mass represents the sacrifice of the cross by this, that the body and blood of Christ are placed under different species, namely the body separated from the blood and as it were dead, and the blood of Christ separated from the body and shed; for by the force or sword of the words the blood is separated from the body.¹

a. This question has practical importance where he who accepted a stipend for a Mass consecrated only one species and could not supply the defect. Therefore, from this opinion, in a case of this sort, he who accepted the stipend does not satisfy his obligation of celebrating for him who gave the stipend; wherefore he must either celebrate the Mass again or seek condonation from the Holy See.

b. But since, on the authority of St. Alphonsus (n. 306), the opinion according to which the essence of the sacrifice is had even in the consecration of one species alone is probable, he who has celebrated for a stipend in such a case probably satisfies his obligation; but he who probably has already satisfied his obligation is not bound to fulfill it again, provided he holds this opinion with St. Alphonsus as probable.

¹ Cf. Pesch, VI, n. 886 ss.; Zeitschrift f. k. Th., 1892, p. 97.

165. The end and effects of the Mass. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass is one by reason of the thing offered, but by reason of its end it is fourfold: latreutic, insofar as it is offered for worshiping God; eucharistic, insofar as it is offered for giving thanks to God for benefits received; impetratory, insofar as it is offered for obtaining benefits; and satisfactory, insofar as it is offered for obtaining the remission of temporal punishments which are still owed for sins already remitted. In this way it happens that the sacrifice of the Mass contains in itself alone the differences of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament.

The celebrating priest can explicitly intend one or another or even all of these ends, and laudably does intend them; yet this is not necessary: for the intention of them is always had implicitly whenever the priest intends to perform the sacred action as Christ instituted it or as the Church wills and intends; but this implicit intention is always had in one about to celebrate.

2. To the fourfold end for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered from its institution there corresponds a fourfold effect, which the same sacrifice produces in reality. It exhibits to the most holy Trinity the most perfect worship of latria, pays the debt of thanksgiving for benefits received, obtains benefits of every kind, supernatural and natural, insofar as these conduce to salvation, and finally obtains from God remission for sinners as to punishment; therefore it produces a latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and satisfactory effect.

It is clear that some of these effects are produced with respect to God, others with respect to men: the worship of latria, the payment of the debt of gratitude, and the placation of the divine majesty are referred to God; but the remission of punishments and benefits of diverse kind (the impetratory and satisfactory effect) are referred to men.

166. The various offerers. Several offerers of the sacrifice can be distinguished, who nevertheless do not all offer the sacrifice in the same way. To clarify this, it must be noted that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered principally by him in whose name and by whose authority it is offered, who therefore is the principal agent in its offering; ministerially (immediately) it is offered by him who sacrifices in the name and by the power of the principal offerer; ministerially (mediately) by him who in some way joins himself morally to the offering minister, which can happen in two ways, either because by act someone joins himself to him, or because only from the intention of the Church he joins himself to him.

a. The principal offerer is Christ the Lord, who Himself offers the sacrifice of the Mass and thus through priests, as through His ministers, daily renews the sacrifice of the cross in an unbloody manner.

For according to the Council of Trent, the same one is now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross.¹ And indeed, Christ in instituting the sacrifice willed that it always be offered through priests in His name; wherefore He conceded to priests in ordination the power of offering the sacrifice of the Mass in His name.

b. The ministerial (immediate) offerer is the priest alone, who, although he offers in the person of Christ, nevertheless is not a mere executor of another's will, but also himself sacrifices in his own name.

Christ, as the Council of Trent has (loc. cit.), now offers Himself by the ministry of priests. But because the sacrifice of the Mass is offered through consecration, and only the priest is distinguished by the power of consecrating which is handed over in priestly ordination, therefore only the priest can offer the sacrifice of the Mass as ministerial (immediate) offerer.

c. The general offerer is the universal Church, to whom Christ left this sacrifice, so that it might be offered daily in place of the sacrifices of the Old Testament; therefore the Church chooses and consecrates priests so that through them, as through her delegates, she may offer to God the sacrifice of the Mass. Wherefore the priest sacrifices not only as minister of Christ, but also as minister and delegate of the whole Church.

That the faithful, and indeed all of them, offer the sacrifice ministerially (mediately) is gathered from the rite of the Mass: We offer to Thee, O Lord, etc.; Therefore, most clement Father, we humbly ask and beseech, etc.; This offering, therefore, of our service and also of Thy whole family, etc. Therefore, from the intention of the Church, all the faithful offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

d. Special and accessory offerers are the faithful who in some way actually join themselves to the offering priest. Among these the first place is held by those who join their labor with the celebrant, therefore those who either provide a stipend or founded Masses, supply the utensils necessary for Mass, or serve the sacrificing priest; the second place is held by those who are present at Mass in reality, who therefore participate by their will and by their presence; finally, the third place is held by those who are present at Mass in mind and spirit and therefore join themselves to the offerer only by their will, although actual.

¹ Sess. 22, c. 2.

167. The sacrifice and the offerer can be considered triply. 1. Therefore the eucharistic sacrifice can be considered in a threefold way: a. insofar as it was instituted by Christ and is offered by the same Christ; b. insofar as it is offered by the Church, which is the spouse of Christ, in which there always exist many faithful of eminent holiness; c. insofar as it is offered by this determinate priest with this disposition, devotion, and attention. If the sacrifice of the Mass is considered in the first way, it always pleases God the Father infinitely and always produces the same effect, by whatever priest it is offered, whether holy or sinful, whether devout or distracted. If it is considered in the second way, it likewise always pleases God the Father and produces its effect independently of the holiness of the celebrating priest. If it is considered in the third way, it pleases God the Father more and produces a greater effect, the greater the holiness and devotion of the priest is.

2. Likewise the priest offering the sacrifice can be considered triply: a. insofar as he bears the person of Christ, the first offerer and consecrator, of whom the priest is as it were the instrument and ministerial cause; b. insofar as he is the public minister of the Church, in whose name he offers the sacrifice and in whose person he pours forth the prayers which are recited in the Mass; c. insofar as he is a private person offering and praying also in his own name.

a. From these things it is concluded that the sacrifice of the Mass is always a public act of religion, never merely private, and that all the prayers pertaining to the rite of the Mass are poured forth by the priest as he is minister of the Church and a public person. Nor therefore does the character of a private person cease in the priest: for the priest also prays and sacrifices for himself and in his own name.

b. From these things it is concluded that the Mass of a good priest, speaking absolutely, is worth more than that of a bad priest.¹ As to the substantial fruit, which comes ex opere operato from the offering of the sacrifice made in the person of Christ, and as to the fruit which the sacrifice produces insofar as it is offered in the name of the whole Church, the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as that of a good one, since that fruit is independent of the disposition of the minister. Besides this twofold substantial fruit, the Mass of a bad priest profits nothing further, whereas the Mass of a good priest produces other fruits besides from the work of the one working. For insofar as the priest as a private person recites the liturgical prayers in his own name and prays in both Mementos, his prayers are heard as those of a friend of God, but the prayers of a bad priest are not heard by God. But the liturgical prayers are also made in the name of the Church. Now a good priest is accustomed to pray with greater attention, fervor, and confidence than a bad priest; but the more attentively and fervently someone prays, the more he obtains for himself and others. Therefore, even if the prayers which are made in the name of the Church by a bad priest have their fruit, nevertheless insofar as they are made by a good priest with due disposition and devotion, they profit more, especially as to the impetratory fruit, because the prayers of the Church which are poured forth by a good minister please God more and move Him, in view of the holiness of the minister, to grant ampler goods.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 82, a. 6; Gobat, Exper. theol., tract. 3, n. 111 ss.; Sporer-Bierbaum, III, q. 2, n. 320 ss.; Dicastillo, De sacram., tract. 5, n. 190 ss.

THE Council of Trent teaches that the Eucharist is not only a sacrament but is also a sacrifice, instituted by our Lord at the Last Supper to represent and perpetuate the memory of the sacrifice which he was about to offer on the Cross, and to apply its fruits to the souls of men. “ He therefore, our God and Lord, though he was about to offer himself once on the altar of the Cross unto God the Father by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that his priesthood was not to be extinguished by his death, in the last supper, in the night in which he was betrayed —that he might leave to his own beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit—declaring himself constituted a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec, he offered up to God the Father his own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and under the symbols of those same things he delivered (his own body and blood) to be received by his Apostles, whom he then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.”¹’4 A sacrifice is defined to be an offering of some visible object made to God by the performance of a sacred action on the part of a priest or publicly deputed minister, by which we confess the supreme lordship of God. A sacrifice, therefore, differs from an ordinary offering in that it is an act of public worship paid to God alone by a duly authorized minister, who, by slaying the victim or in some way changing it, proclaims the supreme dominion of God over all things.

The sacrifice of the Eucharist is called the Mass, and it may be offered for all the ends for which the various sacrifices of the Old Law were instituted by God. It is the supreme act of worship which we pay to God, and under this respect it is called latreutic; it is eucharistic, inasmuch as through it we render thanks to God for his graces and benefits; it is impetratory, inasmuch as it placates the anger of God, which has been roused against sin and the sinner; and it satisfies the justice of God and thus remits the punishment due to sin.

The introductory portion, up to the offertory, is called the Mass of Catechumens, the principal parts of the Mass being the offertory, the consecration, and the communion. There is much difference of opinion among divines as to what constitutes the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. Some place its essence in the communion, others in the consecration, others in the consecration together with the communion. More probably the consecration of both species, by which the death of Christ is mystically represented by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, contains the whole essence of the sacrifice. The question belongs rather to dogmatic than to moral theology.

¹ Trent, sess. xxii, c. I.

The Mass is a representation and a reproduction in an unbloody manner of the sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross.

The principal minister, Jesus Christ, is the same; the victim is the same; the only difference is the manner of offering, as the Council of Trent teaches. A rightly ordained priest is the secondary minister, who in the name of Christ and of the Church offers the sacrifice to God. In so far as it is the action of Christ, the Mass produces its effect like the sacraments ex opere operato, and does not depend for its efficacy on the holiness or other dispositions of the priest. But it is also the action of the priest, and of the faithful in whose name he acts; and under this respect it produces its effect ex opere operantis.

All the faithful, by virtue of the Communion of saints, but especially those who assist at Mass, partake of its fruits and benefits. Those fruits are, as we have seen, latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory; so that in the Mass we have a most excellent means of fulfilling all the ends of religion. By it and through it we offer to God the highest act of worship which it is in our power to offer; we give him thanks for his continual benefits to us, we ask in the most efficacious manner for what we and others stand in need of, we propitiate his just anger, and make satisfaction for our sins.

The priest who celebrates performs an action in the highest degree pleasing to Almighty God and meritorious for himself. Moreover, just as prayer may be offered for a special intention, and as the sacrifices of the Old Law were offered for the needs of those who presented the victim, so the Mass also may be celebrated by the priest for some definite intention. The special or ministerial fruit of the Mass is thus applied by the priest according to the intention with which he offers it.

Apart from special prohibitions, the Mass may be offered for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered, and whom it can benefit. It may be offered for all the faithful living and dead. The Council of Trent defined that the souls in purgatory are helped by the sacrifices of the faithful, and it is at least theologically certain that the fruits of the Mass are to some extent, which is known to God, applied to them ex opere operato, when Mass is said for that intention. It may also be offered for the conversion of infidels, and in thanksgiving for all the graces and glory which God has bestowed on the blessed in heaven. The damned in hell can receive no benefit from our prayers or sacrifices. According to the new Code, Mass may be offered for anybody, living or dead, but only privately, and with precautions to avoid scandal for excommunicates, and, moreover, only for their conversion, if they are to be avoided as excommunicates (Can. 809; 2262, sec. 2, ii).

Infinite is the worth and dignity of the sacrifice of the Mass, for it is the same as the sacrifice on Calvary, which was capable of redeeming innumerable worlds. This is acknowledged by all theologians, but they are not agreed as to whether the actual fruit derived from a Mass is also infinite. Those fruits are, indeed, greater or less in proportion to the dispositions of the person to whom they are applied. But while St Alphonsus and others are of opinion that a Mass offered for any number of intentions will benefit each one as much as if it were offered for him alone, others hold that the fruit of a Mass is determinate in quantity, and that if it is offered for many each one receives less than he would do if it were offered for him alone. The latter seems the preferable opinion, as it explains better the practice of the Church according to which Mass is offered for individuals, living and dead. If the first opinion were correct, charity would require that every Mass should be offered for all who are in need, for no individual would be the loser; everyone would derive all the benefit from the Mass of which he was capable. This opinion, too, is more in keeping with the nature of the sacraments, of which the fruits seem to be limited in quantity. Otherwise there would be no use in administering several sacraments to a dying person when out of his senses, as is the practice of the Church. -Whichever opinion be true, it is against justice to offer only one Mass in satisfaction of the obligation of saying several, when several stipends have been received. Alexander VII condemned the following proposition: “It is not against justice to receive stipends for many Masses and to say only one. Neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise on oath to him who gives a stipend that I will not offer the Mass for anyone else.”

Nothing, however, prevents the priest from having a second intention, as it is called, even when he says Mass for a stipend. By this second intention the priest intends that if for any reason the Mass cannot benefit him for whom the first intention offers it, then the fruit may go to the second. Or, if in fact it be true that the fruit of a Mass is infinite, and capable of equally benefiting any number of persons, then the priest by his second intention desires that others should benefit by his Mass.

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.

Priests may be bound to say Mass for a definite intention on various grounds. Those who hold a benefice are frequently obliged to say Mass, either every day or on certain fixed days, for the intentions prescribed by the founder of the benefice. The conventual Mass, which should be said every day in cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches, ought to be applied for the benefit of the souls of benefactors. The Council of Trent¹ declares that by divine precept it is enjoined on all who have the cure of souls to offer sacrifice for their flock. Bishops, therefore, and regular prelates, who have the full cure of souls, are bound by divine law to say Mass for those committed to their charge. Parish priests are of ecclesiastical institution, and they have not the full cure of souls committed to them. How far their duties extend depends on ecclesiastical law. That law obliges them as well as bishops to say Mass for their flock every Sunday and holy day of obligation, even on those feast-days of obligation which have been suppressed. This obligation is at the same time real and personal. It is real in the sense that if for any reason a bishop or parish priest cannot fulfil it on any particular day, he is under the obligation of providing that it should be fulfilled by some other priest. It is personal in the sense that they must as far as possible fulfil it in person; but if a parish priest be lawfully absent from his parish, he may either apply Mass for his people in the place where he is, or have one applied in his parish by the priest who takes his place (Can. 466, sec. 5).

Quasi-parish priests are bound to offer Mass for their people on the more solemn feasts mentioned in Canon 306.

¹ Sess. xxiii, c. 1, de Ref.

The ecclesiastical superiors of priests may issue a command that Mass be applied for some special intention. When this is done the command must, of course, be obeyed by all whom it concerns. The matter of such a precept is certainly grave, and so there will be a serious obligation of complying with it, if the superior intended to issue a strict precept. This, however, is not always or necessarily the case; and in particular instances, if there is question of determining the gravity of an obligation arising from such a precept, the intention of the superior who gave it will have to be examined according to the ordinary rules of interpretation.

A priest may bind himself by promise to say Mass for a particular intention, and then he will be bound to say it either in justice, or at least out of fidelity, just as he is bound to fulfil his other promises.

Finally, priests are bound in justice to say Mass for the intention of those from whom they have received a stipend for the purpose. The stipend is not the price of the Mass, for this cannot be bought and sold without committing the grave sin of simony. The stipend is given to provide for the support of the priest, who in return undertakes to say Mass for the giver of the stipend. In the early Church the faithful used to bring bread and wine to the priests, who selected from what was offered enough for the sacrifice, and reserved the rest for their support. This was found to be inconvenient, and in course of time the faithful who wished Mass to be offered for their intention contributed a sum of money for the support of the priest. This method, after all, is in substance what St Paul alludes to: “ Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar ?”¹ Simony may, indeed, be committed in transactions concerned with the Mass and stipends, but such sordid practices should not be presumed to be of ordinary occurrence (Can. 824).

Although a priest who accepts a stipend for a Mass does not sell the Mass, yet he enters into a strict contract with the giver of the stipend, and binds himself in justice to apply the Mass for his intention. He will, therefore, commit a grave sin against justice if he fail to fulfil his obligation, and he must restore the stipend which he received, but which he has no title to keep. Not only is the priest who has accepted a stipend bound in justice to say a Mass, but justice also requires that he should observe all the conditions of the contract into which he entered concerning the quality of the Mass, the place, and the time of celebration.

The law of the Church on the matter may be stated as follows: According to the received and approved custom and practice of the Church, it is lawful for any priest who says and applies Mass to receive an alms or stipend for it.

But whenever a priest says Mass more than once in the day, if he has applied one Mass by a title of justice, except on Christmas Day, he cannot receive a stipend for another Mass on the same day, but he may receive some compensation due for some extrinsic reason.

It is never allowed to apply Mass for the intention of someone who will offer a stipend and ask for the application of a Mass but has not yet done so, and retain a stipend given afterwards for a Mass said beforehand. Nor is it allowed to receive a stipend for a Mass which is due in justice and applied by another title. Nor to receive a double stipend for the application of the same Mass. Nor to receive one stipend for the mere celebration of Mass, and another for the application of the same Mass, unless it is certain that one stipend was offered for the mere celebration of the Mass without its application.

Those are called manual stipends which are offered for Masses by the faithful, as it were, out of hand, whether in order to satisfy their own devotion or to fulfil an obligation imposed on them by the will of a testator even in perpetuity.

The stipends of funded Masses are said to be like manual Masses which cannot be applied in the proper place, or by those who ought to apply them according to the laws of the foundation to which they belong, and so by law or by an indult of the Holy See they have to be given to other priests to be satisfied.

Other stipends which are received from the revenue of foundations are called funded or foundation Masses.

Let all appearance even of trading or trafficking with stipends for Mass be altogether avoided.

As many Masses must be said and applied as stipends were given and accepted, however small they were.

The obligation does not cease even though the stipends already received for Mass have been lost without any fault on the part of him who was burdened with their celebration.

If anyone offers a sum of money for Mass stipends without indicating the number of Masses which he wishes to be said, let the number be computed according to the tax of the place where he lived, unless it must be lawfully presumed that his intention was different.

It belongs to the local Ordinary to determine the manual stipend for Masses in his diocese by a decree made in diocesan synod as far as possible; nor is it lawful for a priest to exact a larger sum.

Where there is no formal decree of the Ordinary on the point, let the custom of the diocese be observed.

Religious, even though they be exempt, ought to abide by the local Ordinary’s decree or the custom of the diocese in the matter of the manual stipend of Masses.

A priest may receive a larger stipend for the application of Mass if it is offered voluntarily, and also a less, unless the local Ordinary has forbidden it.

It is presumed that the offerer of a stipend asked only for the application of Mass, but if he expressly stipulated that any circumstances should be observed in the celebration of Mass, the priest who accepts the stipend should comply with the desire expressed.

If the time for the celebration of Masses was expressly determined by the offerer of the stipend, the Masses must by all means be celebrated at that time.

If the offerer expressly determined no time for the celebration of manual Masses— (1) Masses offered for an urgent intention must be offered at the time required by the circumstances and as soon as possible.

(2) In other cases the Masses must be offered within a reasonable time in proportion to the greater or less number of Masses. The decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 11, 1904, assigned one month from the time of receiving the stipend as the limit within which one Mass is to be said, six months as the limit for one hundred Masses, and a longer or shorter period for a greater or less number.

If the offerer expressly left the time of celebration to the judgement of the priest, the priest may say the Mass at what time he pleases, but no one is allowed to receive more stipends than he can satisfy in one year.

In churches in which, on account of the special devotion of the faithful, stipends for Mass are so abundant that all cannot be said there within the proper time, let the faithful be informed by a notice placed in an open and conspicuous place that the stipends offered will be satisfied either there, when it can be done conveniently, or elsewhere.

Let one who has Masses to be said by others distribute them as soon as may be, but the lawful time for their celebrating begins from the day on which the priest who has to say them received the same, unless the contrary is certain.

Those who have a number of Masses of which they can freely dispose may give them to priests on whom they can rely, provided that they know that they are unexceptionable, or are recommended by the testimony of their own Ordinary.

Those who have given Masses, which they have received from the faithful or which are entrusted to them, to others to be said by them, remain bound by their obligation until they receive notice that the stipends have been received and the obligation accepted.

One who sends manual stipends to others ought to send the whole sum which he has received, unless either the offerer expressly allows him to retain a portion, or it is certain that the excess above the diocesan tax was given out of personal considerations, In Masses which are like manual Masses, unless the intention of the founder forbids it, any excess may lawfully be retained, and it is sufficient to send only the manual stipend of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the large stipend takes the place of a part of the dowry of the benefice or pious foundation.

Each and all administrators of pious foundations or persons who are bound in any way to fulfil obligations of having Mass said, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, towards the end of each year must give the Masses which have not yet been said to their Ordinaries according to the method to be defined by them.

This period is to be interpreted in such a way that in the Masses like manual Masses the obligation of handing them over runs from the end of the year within which they ought to have been said; but in manual Masses after a year from the day of undertaking them, unless the offerer determined otherwise.

The right and the duty of seeing that Mass obligations be fulfilled belongs to the local Ordinary in secular churches; in the churches of religious it belongs to their superiors, Let rectors of churches and of other pious foundations, whether secular or religious, in which Mass stipends are wont to be received, have a special book in which they note the number of stipends for Mass received, the intention, the amount of the stipend, and the celebration of the Masses.

The Ordinaries are under the obligation at least every year of examining these books in person or by deputy.

Moreover, local Ordinaries and religious superiors who give Masses to their subjects or to others to be said should at once put down in order in a book the Masses which they have received with their stipends, and should take care, as far as they can, that the Masses be said as soon as possible.

Indeed, all priests, whether secular or religious, ought to note accurately what Mass intentions they have received and which they have satisfied (Can. 824-844).

¹ 1 Cor. ix. 13.

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

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

According to the present discipline of the Church, Mass may not be begun before one hour before daybreak nor after one hour after midday (Can. 821, sec. 1). The necessity of the people or of the priest is a sufficient reason for celebrating somewhat earlier and later than the ordinary times, and regulars have privileges by which they may for just cause begin Mass much earlier and much later than the legal time.

His Holiness Pius X, by a decree of the Holy Office dated August 1, 1907, graciously permitted a priest in future to say three Masses or only one according to the rubrics on the night of the Nativity in all convents of nuns who have enclosure, and in other religious institutions, pious houses, and clerical seminaries, in which the Blessed Sacrament is habitually reserved. Holy Communion may be administered to all who ask for it at these Masses, and anyone who hears one or more of them satisfies the precept of hearing Mass on that day.¹

¹ Acta Sanctae Sedis, xl, p. 478; Can. 821, sec. 3.

By ecclesiastical law Mass may regularly be said only in churches and oratories dedicated solely to the service of God, and therein on duly consecrated altars. If, however, there be no church in the place, or if it be in ruins, or if it be too small to hold the number of worshippers, Mass may be said in a tent or in the open air on a portable altar with the leave of the bishop, if time permits of this being asked.

A bishop can erect public oratories in which Mass may be said in religious institutions, in monasteries and convents, in seminaries, hospitals, prisons, and in the bishop’s own residence. bishops also enjoy a personal privilege of saying Mass on a portable altar even in private houses where they happen to be staying. The Council of Trent¹ forbade bishops to allow priests to say Mass in private houses, and in consequence of this law and of repeated answers of the Roman Congregations, it is now settled that bishops have no power to grant leave for purely domestic oratories in private houses (Can. 822).

The power to do this is now reserved to the Holy See.

If there is an oratory duly erected on board ship, Mass may be said there when circumstances permit. The Holy See also grants leave for Mass to be said on board ship on a portable altar even when there is no permanently erected oratory on board. A priest who has obtained and desires to use this privilege is bound to observe the conditions under which it is granted. Those conditions are that the ship is safe and at a distance from shore, that the sea is tranquil, and that another priest or a deacon is at hand to hold the chalice in case of danger when the ship rolls. Mass should not be said in the passengers’ berths unless everything has been arranged so as to show due reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

¹ Trent, sess. xxii, Decree on things to be observed in Mass.

If a church or public oratory has been polluted by the perpetration therein of certain crimes, it is forbidden to say Mass there until it has been reconciled. The crimes which pollute a church, provided that they are certain, notorious and committed in the church itself, are: homicide, the grave and injurious shedding of blood, the putting of the church to impious or sordid uses, the burial therein of an unbaptized ' person or of an excommunicated person after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence (Can. 1172). It is not allowed to celebrate the divine offices, to administer the sacraments, or to bury the dead in a polluted church before it has been reconciled.

If the church is only blessed it can be reconciled by its rector or by any priest with the presumed leave at least of the rector. one If the church is consecrated, its reconciliation belongs to the Ordinary of the place or to the higher superior if it is a church of exempt religious, or to a priest delegated by either of them. But in a case of grave and urgent necessity, the rector of a consecrated church can reconcile it and inform his Ordinary afterwards. The reconciliation of a blessed church can be done with common holy water. If the church is consecrated, the water should be specially blessed, but the priest who is deputed to reconcile the church can bless the water as well as the Ordinary (Can. 1176, 1177).

Private oratories are not polluted, even if any of the above crimes be committed in them, and so they do not need reconciliation.

Mass may not be said in a church or oratory which has lost its consecration. This happens when the greater part of it is destroyed at one and the same time, or when a new portion is added to it and what is added is greater than the old part. A church does not lose its consecration if the roof falls in or if the plastering of the walls is renewed. When a church loses its consecration it must be reconsecrated, or at least blessed, before Mass be again said in it.

When a church is polluted the altars in it are also polluted, but altars do not lose their consecration merely because the churches in which they are placed are desecrated. A fixed altar loses its consecration if the altar-stone is loosed from its foundation, and both fixed and portable altars lose their consecration if the tomb where the relics are placed is violated, or in consequence of a large fracture.

The sacred vessels and vestments lose their consecration when they are broken or torn so as to lose their shape, or when they are put to improper uses or exposed for public sale (Can. 1305). When the sacred vessels or vestments have lost their consecration, they must be mended and be reconsecrated before use.

Besides what we have seen in the last chapter, the Missal prescribes various other requisites for the due celebration of Mass. The following especially call for mention here: three altar-cloths, two wax candles, the ordinary priestly vestments, a server, a chalice and paten, clean corporal and purificator of linen, and a Missal. The altar linen and the vestments should be blessed by a bishop or by a priest with specially delegated faculties for the purpose.

The chalice and paten should be of silver, and gilded at least on the inside. They should also be consecrated by a bishop. The difficulty of procuring wholly wax candles was reported to the S.R.C., which answered, December 14, 1904, that bishops should as far as possible see that the two candles for Mass should at least have a greater proportion of beeswax than of other material, and that private priests need not anxiously inquire about the quality of the wax.

Of the vestments, at least the alb, chasuble, stole, and maniple are required under grave precept; the amice and the girdle, as also a pall, purificator, and crucifix, are required under a less serious obligation.

The server should be a Catholic and of the male sex, but if one cannot be procured, a woman may make responses from outside the altar rails (Can. 813).

It is a disputed point among theologians whether the proper colour of the sacred vestments is of strict precept; and they deny that there is a strict precept with regard to the use of a veil for the chalice, a burse, and a. stand for the Missal.

In the rubrics of the Missal the Church has laid down a series of minute rules for the celebration of Mass. Their number and minuteness show her solicitude concerning the proper performance of this divine sacrifice. Those which have reference to the Mass itself are in general preceptive and bind under pain of sin. Grave sin, then, is committed by violating the rubrics of the Mass in serious matters; venial sin is committed by their violation in smaller matters. If a notable or important portion of the rite is omitted, or if notable additions are made to it by private authority, or any considerable change be made in it, there is a serious violation of the law. The rubrics which ordain that certain portions of the Mass be said in a loud or low or middle tone of voice only bind under venial sin, and so, if their observance would cause annoyance to other priests who are saying Mass, they cease to bind. Similarly, if through infirmity a priest is unable to observe some smaller rubrics, it is not the mind of the Church that he should be obliged to abstain from celebrating the holy mysteries.

It is a probable opinion that those rubrics in the Missal which have reference to what should be done out of Mass are only directive, not strictly preceptive so as to bind under pain of sin.

The general rule is that the Mass must agree with the office which the calendar prescribes to be said. However, by the decree S.R.C., December 7, 1895, when Mass is said in a church or public oratory which is not one’s own, which uses a different calendar, and celebrates a feast of double or higher rite, the Mass must always agree with the calendar of the church or public oratory, and not with the office of the celebrant.

When Mass has been once begun it may not be broken off without grave reason, even before the consecration. After the consecration a still graver cause is required, as, for example, the sudden breaking out of fire in the church, when the sacred species might be at once consumed and the Mass brought to an end. Moreover, even temporary interruptions of Mass are forbidden except after the Gospel, according to custom. The prohibition is stricter according to the greater solemnity of the part of the Mass where there is question of interruption. However, for good cause, an interruption may be permitted before the offertory; to justify an interruption between the offertory and the consecration a graver cause is required, and a very grave cause after the consecration.

(St. Thomas, II-II, q. 85; q. 86, a. 1; q. 100, a. 2, ad 2; III, q. 22; q. 79, a. 7, ad 2; q. 82; q. 83; q. 85; q. 86, a. 1; q. 100, a. 2, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 304-424; Homo Apostolicus, tract 15, nn. 59-88.)

I. The notion of sacrifice. Sacrifice is the offering of a sensible thing, through some change of it, made to God, and that legitimately, to testify to His supreme dominion and our subjection (St. Alphonsus, VI, 304).

1. The sensible thing itself is the remote matter; the offering of the sensible thing through some change of it is the proximate matter of sacrifice. The end of professing the supreme dominion of God and our subjection is the form of the sacrifice, which, namely, informs the whole act.

2. All admit that some change is required. But it is disputed whether a change for the worse, or destructive change, is required, or a change for the better, insofar, namely, as the thing offered through its sacrification becomes morally more perfect and more pleasing to God.

3. Of those who require a destructive change, some demand a real change, whether physical, as in the killing of an animal, or moral, by which, namely, the thing becomes unfit for common use, as in the pouring out of oil. Others judge that a mystical change suffices.

II. The division of sacrifice. Sacrifices are distinguished:

1. By reason of matter, into victims or hosts, oblations, and libations, according as an animal, or an inanimate solid thing, or an inanimate liquid thing is offered.

2. By reason of mode, into bloody and unbloody.

3. By reason of end, into latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory or expiatory, and impetratory, according as they are principally offered in homage to God, or in thanksgiving, or for remission of guilt or punishment, or for obtaining goods (St. Alphonsus, VI, 304).

III. The principal sacrifices of the Old Testament were:

1. Holocausts, which were principally offered in homage to God. In these the whole thing was consumed by fire.

2. Peace offerings, which were chiefly offered in thanksgiving or for obtaining benefits. In these one part was consumed by fire, another fell to the use of the priests, who ate it in the court of the temple.

3. Offerings for sin, which were principally offered for the remission of guilt or punishment. In these one part was consumed by fire, another fell to the use of the priests, and a third to the use of those offering, who consumed it as a sign of union with God.

Now all the sacrifices of the Old Testament prefigured:

IV. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross, by which Christ offered Himself on the cross, and by which He perfected the redemption of the human race, that is, so consummated satisfaction for sins and merit for obtaining all graces that satisfaction and merit cannot be further increased, according to that saying of the Apostle: "For by one oblation He has perfected forever those who are sanctified."¹

Nevertheless the sacrifice of the cross does not exclude the sacrifice by which the satisfaction and merit completed on the cross are continually applied, that is:

¹ Heb. 10:14.

V. The Eucharistic sacrifice, or the Mass, about which something must be said specifically. We shall treat first of the sacrifice of the Mass considered in itself, then of the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass.

The sacrifice of the Mass is aptly defined: the unbloody sacrifice of the New Testament, in which Christ, through the priest, offers Himself under the species of bread and wine to His Father.¹

This definition having been given, something must be said briefly first about the existence and essence, then about the efficacy and effects of the sacrifice of the Mass.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1.

I. The existence of the sacrifice of the Mass. In the Mass a true and properly so-called sacrifice is offered; this proposition is of faith from these words of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to be eaten, let him be anathema."¹

¹ Session 22, canon 1.

II. The essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. It suffices to note briefly the principal things which pertain here:

1. The victim to be sacrificed is Christ as existing under the species. It is said:

a) Christ; this the Council of Trent teaches in these words: "In this divine sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated unbloodily who once offered Himself bloodily on the altar of the cross."¹

b) As existing under the species. For the Mass is a true and properly so-called sacrifice, and therefore the offering of a visible victim, namely a visible sacrifice. But Christ is not visible to us, nor can He be visibly sacrificed by us, except insofar as He exists under the species. Hence the Council of Trent says: "Our Lord... at the Last Supper, on the night on which He was betrayed, in order that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, as the nature of human beings requires,... offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and under the symbols of those same things commanded the Apostles... and their successors in the priesthood to offer them."²

Note. Bread and wine are only the matter from which the victim is confected. But the species of bread and wine are not constitutive or essential parts of the victim, but are the condition without which the victim is not given.

2. The principal offerer is Christ Himself; the secondary offerer is the priest.³ Co-offerers are added, that is, the Church or the whole faithful people, the minister, and those assisting (St. Alphonsus, VI, 307).

3. What the sacrificial action is, or the constitutive act, or the properly so-called essence of the sacrifice of the Mass, is not one opinion among authors. Now:

a) According to the opinion of all today, consecration pertains to the sacrificial action; and according to the more common opinion, the consecration of both species. It is disputed whether Communion also pertains to the essence. Those who deny this admit that it is an integral part of the sacrifice.

b) Of those who judge that the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass is constituted by consecration alone, some formally place the sacrificial action in consecration insofar as it places Christ in the more abased state of food and drink; others place it in consecration insofar as in it there is a mystical destruction, either because the words of themselves tend toward the real separation of body and blood, or because the sacramental species exhibit a sacramental representation of that separation.

¹ Session 22, chapter 2.

² Session 22, chapter 1.

³ Session 22, chapter 2.

III. The character of the sacrifice of the Mass. The sacrifice of the Mass is both an absolute and a relative sacrifice: absolute, insofar as considered in itself it has all the elements of a true sacrifice; relative, insofar as it essentially says relation to the sacrifice of the cross, or insofar as it is essentially representative and commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross¹ (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 7; q. 83, a. 1).

¹ Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1.

IV. The agreement of the Mass with the sacrifice of the cross, and its difference from it.

1. Both sacrifices agree as regards substance, namely as regards the victim and the principal offerer. Therefore the Mass, by reason of substance, is identified with the sacrifice of the cross, so that this sacrifice is truly repeated as often as Mass is celebrated.

2. They differ:

a) In the fact that the sacrifice of the cross was absolute, as it is called, while the Mass is essentially also relative, or is referred to the sacrifice of the cross.

b) By reason of the secondary offerer, namely, on the cross there was only the principal offerer, namely Christ; in the Mass there are the principal offerer, namely Christ, and the secondary offerer, namely the priest.

c) By reason of the mode of offering, which was bloody on the cross, but is unbloody in the Mass.

d) By reason of the end and effects, insofar as the sacrifice of the cross perfected satisfaction and merits, whereas the Mass applies them to us.

By the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Mass is understood the very power of effecting which it has by reason of the thing offered and of the principal offerer. Now it is clear that this efficacy is infinite. But if it is asked whether the effects produced are themselves also infinite, one must distinguish. The effects which directly regard God, namely the latreutic and eucharistic effects, are infinite; in other words, the sacrifice of the Mass exhibits to God infinite or condign adoration, praise, and thanksgiving. But the effects which directly regard man, namely the propitiatory and impetratory, are limited.

As regards the effects of the Mass, we shall investigate further what the effects of this sacrifice are, in what way they are produced, in what measure different effects come to different persons, and what is required so that a special fruit may come to someone.

I. The effects of the Mass correspond to its ends. Hence, just as the end is fourfold, so also the effect is fourfold, namely latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, and impetratory; in other words: 1. it renders adoration and praise to God; 2. it gives thanks to God for benefits received; 3. it placates offended divine justice and obtains remission of guilt and punishment; and 4. it obtains other spiritual and temporal goods.

Of the said effects, those which directly tend to our utility, namely the propitiatory and impetratory, are customarily indicated by the name fruits.

II. The mode by which the effects are produced. The effects of the Mass can be understood to be produced in three ways:

1. Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis, according as the effect proceeds by reason of the sacrifice itself, that is, by reason of the victim offered and the principal offerer, or by reason of the work of the co-offerers, that is, of the Church, the minister, and the faithful.

2. Immediately and mediately, according as the effect proceeds not through an intermediate effect, or through an effect of this kind.

3. Infallibly and fallibly. Now:

1. The latreutic and eucharistic effects are produced:

a) Ex opere operato, and indeed immediately and infallibly.

b) Ex opere operantis, and indeed immediately, and: 1. certainly and infallibly from the work of the Church co-offering; 2. whether or not, and how much, from the work of the other co-offerers depends on their disposition.

2. The propitiatory and impetratory effects are produced:

a) Ex opere operato; moreover ex opere operantis, namely of the Church co-offering, which moves God in a special way; likewise of the other co-offerers, the priest and the faithful, who can contribute to the aforesaid effects according to greater or lesser disposition.

b) Immediately are produced the placation of divine justice, relaxation of temporal punishment after guilt has been remitted, actual graces, and other spiritual and temporal goods. Mediately are produced remission of guilt, namely through the grace of repentance, and increase of habitual grace, namely through actual graces.

c) Some remission of temporal punishment after guilt has been remitted is produced infallibly, if the Mass is offered for the just. Other fruits are produced fallibly, because something can stand in the way either on the part of Christ, or on the part of the subject placing an obstacle. Nevertheless, it can be said that all fruits are produced infallibly in first act, insofar as the impetration of Christ is of itself always heard.

III. The measure according to which the effects come to those for whom Mass is offered.

Preliminary note I. Here the discussion concerns the effects which directly regard our utility, in other words, the propitiatory and impetratory effects, which effects, as we have already noted, are called fruits.

Preliminary note II. By reason of those to whom the fruits of the Mass come, a threefold fruit is distinguished, namely general, special or middle or ministerial, and most special or personal. The general fruit is that which comes to the whole Church; namely, since the priest always offers in the name of Christ and of the Church for the whole Church, it cannot happen that every sacrifice does not produce a fruit coming to the whole Church. The special fruit is that which comes to the one or ones to whom the priest specially applies the Mass. The most special fruit is that which comes to the celebrant. Namely, it cannot happen that a peculiar fruit does not come ex opere operato to the one offering worthily. But more commonly they judge that the priest cannot yield this fruit. To this fruit is referred that which comes to those contributing to the sacrifice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 312, 318). These things having been noted beforehand, I say:

1. The measure according to which the general fruit is distributed seems to be judged from the greater or lesser dignity and holiness of the members of the Church, and from the special commemoration made by the priest.

2. The measure of the most special fruit, insofar as it comes to the celebrant, is greater to the degree that the disposition and devotion of the priest are more perfect. Insofar as this fruit comes to the co-offerers, it will be greater or lesser according to the measure of cooperation in the sacrifice, disposition, and devotion. Nor is this fruit diminished by the greater number of co-offerers.

3. The measure of the special fruit is determined by these things:

a) It will be more abundant to the degree that the disposition of the one for whom Mass is offered is more perfect. Since this disposition can be increased indefinitely, the special fruit, equally with the general and most special fruit, is therefore called intensively indefinite.

b) It is disputed whether the special fruit is extensively infinite; in other words, whether the same measure comes to each one, whether Mass is offered for one or for several. Now some simply affirm. Others affirm with respect to the impetratory fruit, and deny with respect to the propitiatory. Others simply deny;¹ and we agree with them. For the Church approves and commends the practice of celebrating for a determined person. But if the opinion of the adversaries were true, a determination of this kind would be useless, because in it, with respect to the determined person, it would not matter whether the celebration were made for one or for all. Indeed it would be altogether better always to celebrate for all, because by the application of a determined person the rest would lack the fruit, without utility for that determined person.

¹ As regards St. Alphonsus, in the moral work, n. 312, he says both opinions are probable, but the first seems to him more probable. But in two later works, namely in the work In Tridentinum, session 22, n. 22, and in the little work on Mass stipends, whose title is De abusibus in acceptandis Missis, nn. 26-28, he teaches the second opinion absolutely and calls it common. Whence he seems to have changed his opinion (Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, vol. II, n. 185).

I. The principal minister is Christ the Lord. "It is the same one," says the Council of Trent, "now offering through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross."¹

II. The secondary minister is every and only priest. "If anyone says," the same Council of Trent says, "that by those words: Do this in commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."²

III. In some sense all the faithful can be called ministers of the sacrifice of the Mass, namely insofar as they contribute something to the sacrifice. They do this insofar as they are members of the Church, in whose name the priest celebrates; insofar as they assist at the sacrifice and conform themselves to the intention of the principal and secondary minister; and insofar as they causally concur in the sacrifice, for example by giving a stipend or by serving the priest celebrating (St. Alphonsus, VI, 307).

Corollary I. Several priests can indeed offer the sacrifice of the Mass together, but this is illicit except in the Mass of the ordination of priests, and in the Mass of the consecration of bishops according to the Roman Pontifical (canon 803; n. 20).

Corollary II. A priest who is a stranger to a church, that is, not assigned to the church in which he asks to celebrate, can be admitted as follows:

1. If he shows authentic and still valid commendatory letters from his Ordinary if he is secular, or from his superior if he is religious, or from the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church if he is of an Oriental rite, he is to be admitted to the celebration of Mass, unless meanwhile it is clear that he has committed something on account of which he ought to be repelled from the celebration of Mass (canon 804, § 1).

2. If he lacks those letters, but his probity is very well known to the rector of the church, he can be admitted. But if he is unknown to the rector, he can still be admitted once or twice, provided that, clothed in ecclesiastical dress, he receives nothing, under any title, from the celebration from the church in which he sacrifices, and signs his name, office, and diocese in a special book (canon 804, § 2). It is said provided that he is clothed in ecclesiastical dress, that is, provided that the stranger, by the form of his dress, manifests that he is a priest.

3. Special norms concerning this matter, given by the local Ordinary, with the prescriptions of this canon saved, must be observed by all, even exempt religious, unless it concerns admitting religious to celebrate in a church of their own religious institute (canon 804, § 3).

¹ Session 22, chapter 2.

² Session 22, canon 2.

I. Christ imposed upon the college of the Apostles and of priests the precept of celebrating repeatedly. This is of faith from the Council of Trent,¹ which declared: "If anyone says that by those words: Do this in commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."

II. Individual priests also are bound to celebrate repeatedly, according to canon 805: All priests are bound by the obligation of sacrificing several times a year; but let the bishop or religious superior take care that they do this sacred work at least on each Sunday and on other feasts of precept. It is said several times a year, that is, three or four times per year.

It is disputed whether the obligation of individuals to celebrate repeatedly is of divine law or only ecclesiastical law. Now most authors with St. Thomas (III, q. 82, a. 10) maintain divine law, because a true disorder seems to exist in the fact that one ordained for rendering so great honor to God and for providing so great utility to human beings frustrates such an end (St. Alphonsus, VI, 313; Examen Ordinandorum, n. 111).

III. One who can conveniently celebrate and does not celebrate because of sloth, according to several authors sins lightly, because a venial disorder is had in the fact that one ordained for celebrating neglects so great a good of God and human beings, which he can provide with such ease (St. Alphonsus, VI, 359). For the rest, the same things which commend daily Communion to the faithful persuade priests to daily celebration.

¹ Session 22, canon 2.

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.

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).

I. The natural fast. It is not lawful for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed (canon 808). See the things which regard the natural fast set forth in n. 187 sq. Add canon 247, § 5: "It, that is, the Congregation of the Holy Office, alone is competent concerning all those things which regard the Eucharistic fast for priests celebrating Mass." Finally, the Holy Office declared¹ that priests dispensed from the Eucharistic fast can, before the second Mass, take the ablution in the first.

¹ 16 November 1923 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1923, p. 584).

II. The state of grace is required both for carrying out the consecration worthily (n. 26), and for receiving Communion (n. 179).

1. One who has lost the state of grace is bound per se to recover it through sacramental confession (canon 807); per accidens an act of perfect contrition suffices, namely if necessity urges and availability of a confessor is lacking (cited canon). See each of these things more fully explained in n. 179.

2. But if a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin has celebrated, availability of a confessor being lacking and necessity urging, yet after eliciting an act of perfect contrition, let him confess as soon as possible (canon 807).¹ It is said:

a) A priest; and so the law does not bind a layperson or a cleric not yet initiated into the priesthood (St. Alphonsus, VI, 268).

b) Availability of a confessor being lacking and necessity urging, yet after eliciting an act of perfect contrition; hence the law does not regard a priest who has celebrated without confession when either availability of a confessor was not lacking, or necessity was not urging, or the act of contrition was neglected. Those who celebrate thus commit sacrilege; but the reason why the law does not include sacrilegious persons is that it would become useless and an occasion of a new transgression (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260).

c) Without sacramental confession having been made beforehand; and so a priest is not held by the law if he celebrated after a confession in which he inculpably forgot a mortal sin, because he did not celebrate without a previous confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 267).

d) Has celebrated; therefore a priest who has merely communicated is excepted. It is disputed, however, whether the law includes a priest who, while celebrating, remembers a grave sin or becomes guilty of one. Several deny this, because in the rubric² it is said that a priest who before Mass remembers a sin and celebrates from necessity, not having availability of a confessor, is bound afterward to confess at the first opportunity. But speaking of one who remembers a sin in the celebration itself, the rubric³ says: Let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing, without adding: at the first opportunity (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 267).

e) Let him confess as soon as possible. Moreover:

alpha) Here there is a true precept; hence Alexander VII condemned the proposition: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is counsel, not a precept."⁴ Moreover, that precept by the consent of all obliges under grave sin.

beta) This "as soon as possible," according to the common opinion, is understood as within three days, or in such a way that it is not lawful to wait beyond three days.⁵ The obligation of confessing exists even if someone is not going to celebrate except after a longer time. Moreover, meanwhile the priest cannot again celebrate without previous confession unless both necessity of celebrating is present and availability of a confessor is lacking. Finally, if someone can confess now and foresees that afterward the occasion of confessing will be lacking, he is bound to confess now, for example already on the first day (St. Alphonsus, VI, 266).

¹ Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 7.

² De defectibus, title VIII, n. 3.

³ De defectibus, title VII, n. 4.

⁴ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138.

⁵ Alexander VII condemned the proposition: "That particle 'as soon as possible' is understood as, when the priest will confess in his own time" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1139).

III. Preparation and thanksgiving. Let the priest not omit to dispose himself by pious prayers for the oblation of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and, once it has been completed, to give thanks to God for so great a benefit (canon 810).

III. Places in which Mass can be celebrated. Mass can be celebrated:

1. In consecrated or solemnly blessed churches and public oratories (canons 822, § 1; 1165, § 1; 1191).

2. In legitimately erected semi-public oratories, all divine offices or ecclesiastical functions can be celebrated, unless the rubrics stand in the way or the Ordinary has excepted something (canon 1193). The oratories of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and of bishops, whether residential or titular, although private, nevertheless enjoy all the rights and privileges by which semi-public oratories rejoice (canon 1189).

3. In legitimately erected private oratories,¹ as follows:

a) If they have been erected from an indult of the Apostolic See, unless something else is expressly provided in the same indult, after the Ordinary has visited the oratory personally or through another and found it decently furnished, one Mass can be celebrated, and that a read Mass, on individual days, except the more solemn feasts; but other ecclesiastical functions are not to be performed there (canon 1195, § 1). The Ordinary, however, provided just and reasonable causes are present, different from those on account of which the indult was granted, can permit the celebration of Mass by way of an act even on the more solemn feasts (canon 1195, § 2).

b) Even if they have not been erected from an indult of the Holy See but by the authority of the Ordinary, the Ordinary can, in some extraordinary case, for a just and reasonable cause, permit one Mass by way of an act, even repeatedly, but not habitually (canon 1194).

c) In private cemetery chapels, of which canon 1190 speaks, the local Ordinary can permit habitually even the celebration of several Masses (canon 1194).

d) Nuncios, internuncios, and apostolic delegates, from the faculties granted to them, can grant to sick priests, during infirm health, and likewise to priests advanced in age, an indult of a private oratory in which they may celebrate Mass, with the canonical rules observed. Several bishops can do the same.

e) Regulars, by force of the communication of privileges, enjoy the privilege which Gregory XIII granted to the Society of Jesus, that Provincials can, personally and without the permission of the bishop, erect oratories in houses and colleges and in other places where some of the Society will reside; in these oratories several Masses can be celebrated on the same day even by outsiders, and those assisting can fulfill the precept.² Finally, Regulars, by force of the communication of privileges, have the faculty granted to several institutes of erecting private oratories in granges or rural houses; everyone who assists at Mass there can satisfy the precept.

4. Outside a church and oratories, it is lawful to celebrate as follows:

a) The privilege of a portable altar imports the faculty of celebrating everywhere upon a sacred stone, yet in an honorable and decent place, but not at sea (canon 822, § 3).

This privilege is conceded either by law or by indult of the Apostolic See alone (canon 822, § 2). By law it has been conceded to Cardinals and bishops, who can also permit another Mass to be celebrated while they are present (canon 239, § 1, 7; 349, § 1, 1).

b) The local Ordinary, or, if there is question of a house of an exempt religious institute, the major superior, can grant permission of celebrating outside a church and oratory upon a sacred stone and in a decent place, but never in a bedroom, only for a just and reasonable cause, in some extraordinary case and by way of an act (canon 822, § 4). It is said, however, never in a bedroom, that is, in a bedroom in which someone is actually lying sick.³ For the rest, the said faculty must be interpreted restrictively.⁴

c) In order that Mass can be said at sea or on a river, a special indult of the Holy See is required, so that the privilege of an altar does not suffice (canon 822, § 3). The special indult belongs to Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and to bishops (canon 239, § 1, 8; canon 349, § 1, 1).

The indult is customarily granted under this law: that the sea be so calm that no danger is present of spilling the sacred species from the chalice; that another priest, if present, assist; and that, if on the ship there is not a proper chapel or fixed altar, nevertheless the chosen place bear nothing indecent or unbecoming. Nor is celebration in cabins prohibited when all the circumstances remove dangers of irreverence.⁵

d) If necessity urges, and recourse cannot be had to the Ordinary, it is lawful by epikeia to celebrate anywhere, even in the open air, provided the place has nothing unbecoming. Necessity urges, for example, if a church has collapsed and a Sunday or feast still in force as a day of precept is at hand; if an army is in camp and Mass must be heard from precept; if otherwise Viaticum cannot be administered, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 356, 359).

¹ Oratories, both semi-public and private, must be reserved for divine worship alone and free from all domestic uses (canon 1196, § 2).

² Constitution Decet Romanum Pontificem, 3 May 1575.

³ Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 23 December 1912.

⁴ Pontifical Commission, 16 October 1919, ad 12 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1919, p. 478). Then the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, in its letters to the Ordinaries of Italy, 26 July 1924, declared that this just and reasonable cause must be taken from the good of divine worship and the spiritual good of souls (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1924, p. 370). From the response of the same Sacred Congregation, 3 May 1926, the Ordinary also cannot permit celebration at home, with the corpse present in a place commonly called camera ardente, except in some extraordinary case, when a just and reasonable cause exists. Such an extraordinary case together with a just and reasonable cause, according to the response of the same Sacred Congregation, is had on the occasion of the death of the local Ordinary or of a person from a princely family, or otherwise distinguished because of merits and good deeds toward the Church or the state, or because of most munificent largesses to the poor and needy. In this case, provided that the due obsequies are always fulfilled in the church, the Ordinary can permit the celebration of one or another Mass, but not more than three Masses, the indult of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 29 April 1894 having been abrogated (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1926, p. 388). Thus Aertnys-Damen, II, n. 232.

⁵ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 1 March 1902, compared with 13 March 1902.

IV. Places in which Mass cannot be celebrated. Mass cannot be celebrated in the temple of heretics or schismatics, even if it was formerly rightly consecrated or blessed (canon 823, § 1); nor in an execrated, violated, or interdicted church or public oratory, until it has again been consecrated or blessed or reconciled, or the interdict has ceased (canons 822; 1170; 1173, § 1; and 2270, § 1, compared with canon 1191, § 1).

1. Execration is had when the holiness of a church or public oratory, inhering in it from dedication, is lost. This, with canon 1170 considered and explained, happens: 1. when the whole building is simultaneously destroyed or collapses; 2. when the greater part of the walls is simultaneously destroyed or collapses; 3. when the building is reduced by the local Ordinary to profane uses. But it does not happen: 1. when the plaster partly or entirely falls from the walls or is removed;¹ 2. when a part which is not the greater part collapses, for example only the roof or only the facade of the church; 3. when walls fall or are destroyed and restored at intervals, even if the whole church becomes new, provided, however, that the greater part does not fall or be destroyed at once (St. Alphonsus, VI, 367, 368).

Note. Once a church has been execrated, the title perishes, as does the recitation of the office and commemoration of the titular patron. An execrated church must again be consecrated or blessed as new.

2. Violation consists in this: that the holiness inhering in a church or public oratory is not indeed lost, but nevertheless is contaminated. This happens through certain criminal or at least very indecent acts. Moreover, "a church is violated only by the acts listed below, provided that they are certain, notorious, and placed in the church itself: 1. the crime of homicide; 2. injurious and grave shedding of blood; 3. impious or sordid uses to which the church has been assigned; 4. the burial of an infidel or of an excommunicated person after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence" (canon 1172, § 1). See these things set forth in vol. I, n. 616. Now:

a) In a violated church, before it is reconciled, it is forbidden to celebrate divine offices (canon 1173, § 1); moreover, a violated church must be reconciled as quickly as possible (canon 1174, § 1).

b) The rector of the same church or any priest with at least the presumed consent of the rector can reconcile a blessed church (canon 1176, § 1). The valid reconciliation of a consecrated church belongs to the bishop or, if it belongs to an exempt clerical religious institute, to the major superior; each can delegate another priest for this (canon 1176, § 2, compared with canon 1156). In a case of grave and urgent necessity, if the Ordinary cannot be approached, it is permitted to the rector of a consecrated church to reconcile the same church, after the Ordinary has afterward been informed (canon 1176, § 3).

c) The reconciliation of a blessed church can be done with common holy water; but the reconciliation of a consecrated church should be done with water blessed for this according to liturgical laws, which nevertheless not only bishops but also the priests who reconcile the church can bless (canon 1177).

3. An interdict of a church, insofar as it prevents the celebration of Mass, is explained in the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties.

¹ Once the plaster has been renewed, the crosses made in testimony of consecration should again be painted or applied (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 May 1882, n. 3545).

I. Days of oblation. The sacrifice of the Mass can be celebrated on all days, except those which are excluded by the priest's own rite (canon 820). Now, with the Latin rite considered:

1. On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord and on Holy Saturday, one Mass is permitted, and indeed only a solemn one. But:

a) If some feast of precept falls on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, "it must be accurately provided by the local Ordinaries that on that day some private Masses, to be celebrated before the celebration of the customary conventual Mass, are not lacking for the fulfillment of the precept; but nevertheless for this reason the ancient custom of the Communion of the clergy in the solemn Mass of that day, on which the Church recalls the institution and memorial of the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, retained until now with the greatest religious care, is in no way omitted."¹ If the feast is no longer of precept, it is not lawful to celebrate several Masses.²

b) Cardinals and, provided they are not bound to celebrate in the cathedral, bishops enjoy the privilege of celebrating, or of permitting another to celebrate before them, one Mass on Thursday of the greater week (canons 239, § 1, 4; 349, § 1, 1).

c) Among Regulars, if the solemn functions of the Greater Week are not performed, the superior can personally or through another celebrate a solemn or private Mass to administer Communion to the subjects, but in a domestic chapel or in a church with closed doors.³ "Indeed," says Vermeersch, "although the solemn functions are held, writers concede that on the same day one Mass may be read in the oratory or in the church with closed doors, for the convenience of the sick. And it is clear from the privilege which Gregory XVI granted to the Province of the Society of Jesus which was then called Upper Germany, 4 December 1841."⁴

d) It is fitting that on Thursday of the greater week all clerics, even priests who abstain from offering the sacred rite on that day, be refreshed with the Most Holy Body of Christ in the solemn or conventual Mass (canon 862).

2. On the day of Parasceve, Mass cannot be celebrated unless it would be necessary for confecting Viaticum; in that case the Mass of the Passion of the Lord should be taken. But the Mass which is called the Mass of the Presanctified is not a sacrifice.

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 September 1692, n. 1883; 10 January 1693, ad VI, n. 1890.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 September 1868, n. 3179.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, n. 2799.

⁴ De religiosis institutis et personis, vol. I, n. 467.

II. Hour of oblation. 1. Object of the precept. The beginning of a Mass to be celebrated should not take place earlier than one hour before dawn or later than one hour after noon (canon 821, § 1). Dawn, or morning twilight, begins generally when the sun enters the eighteenth degree below the horizon. It differs according to different regions, insofar as they approach the pole more or less; generally it begins two hours before sunrise, but more than two hours before sunrise in northern regions, for there dawn is prolonged for a longer time. For the rest, tables inserted into calendars are accustomed to indicate the hour of dawn. Where dawn does not appear through some time of the year, it is lawful during that time to begin Mass from the beginning of civil, moral, and usual life, that is, at the time when people are accustomed to rise in the morning for work.¹ The same seems to be applicable to the time when dawn is very late in some regions. Finally, where dawn endures through the whole night during some part of the year, it seems lawful to begin at midnight. Nevertheless, it is not becoming to begin before the second morning hour, because the Church scarcely ever grants the faculty of beginning earlier. Exceptions from the ordinary rule are:

a) On the night of the Nativity of the Lord, only the conventual or parochial Mass can be begun at midnight, but not another without apostolic indult (canon 821, § 2).

b) Nevertheless, in all religious or pious houses having an oratory with the faculty of habitually reserving the Most Holy Eucharist, on the night of the Nativity of the Lord, one priest can celebrate the three ritual Masses, or, with the things to be observed being observed, only one Mass which may also avail for satisfaction of the precept for all those present, and can administer Holy Communion to those requesting it (canon 821, § 3). Moreover, the Holy Office, 26 November 1908, declared that the said Masses cannot be celebrated with the doors of the oratories open, nor in churches which serve the public use of the faithful people.

c) Cardinals and, provided they are not bound to celebrate in the cathedral, bishops enjoy the privilege of celebrating, or of permitting another to celebrate before them, three Masses on the night of the Nativity of the Lord (canons 239, § 1, n. 4; 349, § 1, n. 1).

d) It is disputed whether privileges granted to Regulars before the Council of Trent have been revoked. But the dispute is merely theoretical, since "today, from a privilege granted to the Congregation of the Purity erected at Naples, Regulars can always and everywhere celebrate two hours before dawn and after noon."² Likewise Gregory XVI, by his rescript of 13 May 1838, granted that the Superior General of the Society of Jesus could give the faculty to missionaries that, whether for the sake of a journey or for the sake of devotion, "for themselves or for the people, or for the sake of giving Communion to the faithful waiting, they may celebrate at the second hour after midnight."³

2. Gravity of the precept. The obligation of the precept is grave from its genus, as is gathered both from the Council of Trent⁴ and from the Constitution of St. Pius V In Christo Pater.⁵ Moreover, it would be a grave sin, without proportionate reason, to begin Mass one hour earlier or later than is lawful by law or privilege.

3. Causes for anticipating or deferring Mass are:

a) That Viaticum may be given to a dying person; in this case no hour is excepted.

b) An existing reasonable custom, for example that workers and servants may be able to hear the sacred rite very early in the morning; likewise, if on a feast day a solemn Mass is extended an hour and more beyond noon, it is lawful, if there is a custom, to celebrate a private Mass after the solemn sacred rite, lest a part of the people be without Mass.

c) A reasonable cause, for example a journey to be made, excuses if there is question of anticipating or deferring Mass briefly, for example by half an hour.

d) Finally, a bishop and the major superior of exempt clerical religious can dispense themselves and their subjects in an urgent case (canon 81; St. Alphonsus, VI, 343 and 344), indeed, as it seems, also from a just cause.⁶

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 November 1634, n. 614.

² Compendium Privilegiorum Piorum Operariorum, part 2, chapter 5, § 7.

³ Thus Gaude, Opera Moralia S. Alphonsi, book VI, n. 342, note.

⁴ Session 22, Decree concerning the things to be observed and avoided.

⁵ 29 March 1566.

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 July 1899, n. 4044, ad IV.

I. An altar, and that consecrated (canon 822, § 1). Now either the whole altar must be consecrated, if there is question of an immovable altar, or only the portable altar-stone, if there is question of a movable altar (canon 1199, § 1). Moreover, per se Mass must be celebrated on an altar of the proper rite; but when such an altar is lacking, it is lawful for a priest to celebrate according to his own rite on an altar consecrated for another Catholic rite, but not upon the antimensions of the Greeks (canon 823, § 2).¹ Finally, on papal altars no one may celebrate without apostolic indult (canon 823, § 3). With these things summarily noted, several things about the altar must be noted.

1. Notion of an altar. In the liturgical sense it is understood: 1. by the name of an immovable or fixed altar, the upper table together with the supports consecrated with it as one thing; 2. by the name of a movable or portable altar, a stone, usually small, which alone is consecrated and which is also called a portable altar-stone or sacred stone; or the same stone together with a support which nevertheless was not consecrated together with it (canon 1197, § 1).

In a consecrated church at least one altar, especially the major altar, must be immovable; but in a blessed church all altars can be movable (canon 1197, § 2).

2. Construction of an altar. a) Both the immovable table and the sacred stone should consist of one natural stone, whole and not friable (canon 1198, § 1).

b) In an immovable altar the stone slab or table must extend to the whole altar and suitably cohere with the support; the support should be of stone, or at least the sides or little columns by which the table is supported should be of stone (canon 1198, § 2).

c) The sacred stone should be so large that it holds at least the host and the greater part of the chalice (canon 1198, § 3).

d) Both in an immovable altar and in a sacred stone there should be, according to the norm of liturgical laws, a sepulcher containing relics of Saints, closed with stone (canon 1198, § 4). Concerning this, observe that for due consecration it is required that relics from the bodies of at least two martyrs be deposited in the sepulcher, and that these be enclosed with a stone cover. Nevertheless, for the validity of consecration the relics of only one martyr suffice.² For the rest, relics of other Saints can be added.

3. Consecration of an altar. Portable altar-stones can be consecrated validly and licitly by Cardinals (canon 239, § 1, 20), all bishops (canon 1199, § 2), vicars and prefects apostolic within the limits of their territory and while their office endures (canon 294, § 2), and abbots and prelates nullius (canon 323, § 2). Immovable altars can be validly consecrated by the same persons who validly consecrate portable altar-stones, excepting, however, vicars and prefects apostolic who lack the episcopal character. In order that they act licitly, the Ordinary of the territory must grant permission, with the right of Cardinals to consecrate altars of their own title remaining firm (canons 1155; 1199, § 2). The consecration of an immovable altar, which is done without the dedication of a church, although it can be done on any day, is nevertheless more fittingly done on a Sunday or another feast of precept (canon 1199, § 3).

4. Execration of an altar. a) An immovable altar loses consecration if the slab or table is separated from the support even for a moment of time; in this case the Ordinary can permit a presbyter to perform the consecration of the altar again with the shorter rite and formula (canon 1200, § 1). It is not execrated if the table, not separated from the support, is transferred to another church or to another place of the same church.³

b) Both an immovable altar and a sacred stone lose consecration: 1. if they are broken enormously, whether by reason of the quantity of the fracture or by reason of the place of anointing (canon 1200, § 2, 1), but not if they are merely scraped; 2. if the relics are removed or the cover of the sepulcher is broken or removed, except in the case in which the bishop himself or his delegate removes the cover in order to secure, repair, or replace it, or to inspect the relics. But a slight fracture of the cover does not induce execration, and any priest can secure a little crack with cement (canon 1200, § 2, 2 and 3).

c) The execration of a church does not carry with it the execration of altars, whether immovable or movable; and conversely (canon 1200, § 4).

5. The title of an altar. a) Just as a church, so any altar of a church, at least an immovable one, should have its own title. The primary title of the major altar must be the same as the title of the church (canon 1201, §§ 1 and 2).

b) Altars cannot be dedicated to Blessed persons, even in churches and oratories to which their office and Mass have been granted, without an indult of the Apostolic See (canon 1201, § 4).

c) With the permission of the Ordinary, the title of a movable altar can indeed be changed, but not the title of an immovable altar (canon 1201, § 3).

6. Necessity of an altar. The precept of consecrating on a consecrated and not execrated altar is grave.⁴ Moreover, according to some it is never lawful to celebrate outside an altar; according to others this is lawful in a most grave necessity, for example for confecting Viaticum, because, they say, the precept of receiving Viaticum is divine, while the prohibition of celebrating outside an altar is ecclesiastical.

7. Things to be noted. a) The altar-stone, that is, the portable altar-stone or sacred stone, must be inserted in an altar made of wood or of another material.⁵

b) Both an immovable and a movable altar must be reserved only for divine offices and especially for the celebration of Mass, any profane use being altogether excluded (canon 1202, § 1).

c) No corpse should be hidden under the altar; but corpses which perhaps are buried near the altar should be distant from it by a space of at least one meter. Otherwise it is not lawful to celebrate Mass on the altar until the corpse is removed (canon 1202, § 2).

¹ An antimension is a consecrated cloth in which there are relics, and which, spread upon any table, can be used for saying Mass.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 February 1906, n. 4180, ad III.

³ The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 September 1879, n. 3504, ad I, which is opposed, seems to speak of the transfer of the table alone, separated from the support.

⁴ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title XX; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁵ Roman Missal, loc. cit.

I. "If a consecrated host, or some particle of it, falls to the ground, it should be reverently taken up, and the place where it fell should be cleaned and somewhat scraped, and the dust or scraping of this kind should be put into the sacrarium. If it falls outside the corporal onto the altar cloth, or in any other way onto some linen, the altar cloth or linen of this kind should be diligently washed, and the washing itself poured into the sacrarium."¹ The prescribed washing does not oblige under grave sin. Hence it should rather be omitted whenever it would excite wonder, for example if the host should fall into the beard or clothing of the communicant. If it has slipped into a woman's bosom, she herself should look for it and hand it to the priest, or herself put it into her mouth with her own hands (St. Alphonsus, VI, 250). If the host has fallen inside the enclosure of nuns, the priest should enter the enclosure.

II. If through negligence something of the Blood of Christ has fallen, one must proceed as follows:

1. If indeed it has fallen upon the ground or upon a board, it should be licked with the tongue, and the place itself scraped as much as is enough, and the scraping burned; the ashes, however, should be stored in the sacrarium.

2. But if it has fallen upon the altar stone, let the priest absorb the drop, and let the place be well washed, and let the washing be cast into the sacrarium.

3. If it has fallen upon the altar linen, and the drop has reached another linen; if even to the third, the linens are to be washed three times where the drop fell, with the chalice placed underneath, and the water of the washing is to be cast into the sacrarium.

4. But if it has fallen only on the corporal itself or on the priestly vestments themselves, it should similarly be washed, and the washing cast into the sacrarium. If it has fallen on the cloth spread under the feet, or on a carpet, it should be well washed, as above.²

Moreover, in the spilling of the Blood, at least some washing must be done under grave obligation.

III. If in winter the Blood freezes in the chalice, the chalice should be wrapped in warmed cloths; if this does not help, it should be placed in boiling water near the altar, provided the water does not enter the chalice, until it liquefies.³

IV. If the priest "discovers after the consumption of the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, that some consecrated remnants have been left behind, let him consume them, whether they are small or large, because they pertain to the same sacrifice."⁴ Let him do this also if the priest is already in the sacristy, with the vestments not yet removed. If he has removed the vestments, let him place the fragments in the tabernacle or reserve them for a priest who is to celebrate that same morning; and let him proceed in the same way if the fragments are remnants of another sacrifice, because the Rubric permits him to consume only remnants which pertain to the same sacrifice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 251, question 3). But if an entire consecrated Host has been left, "let him put it in the tabernacle with the others; if this cannot be done, let him leave it for the following priest who is to celebrate there, decently covered on the altar over the corporal, to be consumed together with the other which he is going to consecrate; or if neither of these can be done, let him preserve it decently in the chalice itself or on the paten until either it is put into the tabernacle or consumed by another; but if he has no way in which it can be preserved honorably, he can consume it himself."⁵

V. If a ciborium which another priest needs must be purified, and the server through forgetfulness took the purification of the chalice before it had been purified, it is lawful - although the natural fast has ceased - to consume the small remnants found in the ciborium, because the consumption can be counted as by way of one act with Communion. It is more difficult to say that it is lawful to consume an entire host, since it can be kept for the following day.⁶

VI. If a sick person, or "a priest, vomits the Eucharist, if the species appear whole, they should be reverently consumed, unless nausea occurs; for then the consecrated species should be carefully separated and placed in some sacred place until they are corrupted, and afterward they should be cast into the sacrarium. But if the species do not appear, the vomit should be burned, and the ashes put into the sacrarium."⁷ If the sick person cannot swallow the host, or, after receiving Viaticum, immediately dies, the host, if it still appears in the mouth, should be extracted and preserved until it is corrupted.

¹ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 10.

² Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 12.

³ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 11.

⁴ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title VII, n. 2.

⁵ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title VII, n. 3.

⁶ Tamburini, De methodo communicandi, chapter 2, n. 37.

⁷ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 14.

Definition of Sacrifice.—Sacrifice is the offering to God and a real changing of a sensible thing, made by a lawful minister, in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and of our subjection to Him.

(a) It is an offering or oblation; that is, one makes a gift directly to God Himself. Thus, sacrifice differs from contributions of the people made for the clergy or the church.

(b) It offers a sensible thing, that is, some object perceptible by the senses or hidden under sensible species; for sacrifice is an outward sign of the inner offering, by which the soul itself is subjected to God.

(c) It is made by a lawful minister, for sacrifice is a public act performed in the name of the community, and hence it may be offered only by those who represent the community. St. Paul declares that a high-priest is chosen from men to offer sacrifice, and that no one may take the honor to himself unless he is called as Aaron was (Heb., v. 4).

(d) It is made to God alone, since God alone is our First Beginning and Last End: “He who sacrifices to other gods besides the Lord shall be put to death” (Exod., xxii. 20). Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints means that sacrifice is offered God in thanksgiving for their merits or in petition that we may imitate their virtues. Oblations may be made to men, but sacrifice may be offered only to God.

(e) It is through a real change of the thing offered, which thus becomes the victim of sacrifice; for the supreme act of worship reserved to God acts upon the substance itself of an external thing to signify that the worshipper offers his own being to God. The change in the thing sacrificed consists in its being made sacred, or set apart as the central object in the supreme act of worship.

(f) It is made in acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and of our subjection to Him; that is, it is an act whose direct and proper end is the exercise of the virtue of religion. Thus, sacrifice differs from acts of self-sacrifice such as continence, abstinence, martyrdom, even when they are offered in honor of God, for the direct and proper end of these acts is some other virtue than that of religion. The act of sacrifice may have no purpose except worship, but other virtuous acts have their own ends to make them praiseworthy, even when they are used as acts of worship.

The Essentials of Sacrifice.—(a) The outward sign may be said to consist of matter and form. The matter is some sensible thing used as victim, whether it be inanimate (e.g., the bread and wine of Melchisedech), or animate (e.g., the paschal lamb), or human (e.g., Our Lord in His passion). The form is some sensible action that makes the victim sacred by dedicating it to sacrificial oblation (e.g., the breaking of bread, the libation of wine, the offering of the slain lamb, the voluntary and visible acceptance of death by Our Lord). In the Mass Christ is sacrificed, not as existing under His own appearances, but as present under the sacramental species and offered through His representatives; and hence in the Mass the Victim is sensible by means of the species that signify and contain Him, while the dedication by the Supreme Priest is made sensible through the words of the ministering priest who acts for Christ.

(b) The inner thing that is signified in sacrifice is primarily the offering of self to God, in recognition that from Him we have our being and in Him is our happiness. But secondarily it signifies the fruits we derive from union with God (e.g., the benefits of redemption and salvation). Thus, the sacrificial death of Christ is also a symbol of man’s death to sin and life in God (I Peter, iv. 1).

The Obligation of Sacrifice.—(a) The internal or spiritual sacrifice is obligatory for all, since all are bound to offer God devotion of will, communion of mind, recognition of His supremacy. (b) The external sacrifice improperly so called, which consists in the practice of works of virtue, is obligatory for all in so far as commanded acts are concerned, but not when virtuous deeds are of supererogation. (c) The external sacrifice properly so called, which consists in an outward sign indicative of internal worship of God, is by natural law necessary, for reason itself shows to man that he is an inferior and dependent being, and so should acknowledge the superiority of God and his own submission by acts suitable to his nature as a being composed of body and soul, and for whom sensible things are signs of spiritual truths.

Exemptions Based on the Natural Law.—Though the external sacrifice strictly so called is obligatory from natural law, it is not a primary precept of nature, nor does nature determine its details.

(a) Hence, the fact of the obligation may be unknown to an individual, since (though reason indicates it) it is not evident and rests upon a number of premises from which it has to be reasoned out. Unlike the duty of honoring parents, which is immediately inferred from natural principles, the duty of offering sacrifice is only remotely inferred, and hence admits of invincible ignorance (see 320).

(b) The manner of fulfilling the obligation, since not defined by natural law, has to be determined by positive laws, or, in the absence of these, by suitability to the circumstances in which one lives. Before the positive divine law was given, there was no obligatory rite for sacrifice and the oblation was not entrusted to any special body of men, and hence we read that in the times of the patriarchs there was great freedom as to the ceremonies and the ministry employed in sacrifice. But under the Mosaic Law the manner of sacrificing was minutely prescribed and its office entrusted to the sons of Aaron, even to the exclusion of monarchs; while under the law of Christ there is but the one sacrifice of the Cross perpetuated in the Mass in an unbloody manner, and the ministers who have power to offer sacrifice are only the bishops and priests.

Is Sacrifice Superior to All the Other Acts of Religion?—(a) Sacrifice is not superior to the internal act of religion, for devotion or the internal sacrifice is the soul that animates and moves the external rites (see 2149): “The multitude offered victims and praises and holocausts with a devout mind” (II Par., xxix. 31); “Obedience is better than sacrifice” (I Kings, xv. 22).

(b) Sacrifice is preeminent among the external acts of religion. Some acts of religion are optional (e.g., vows, oaths, adjurations), but sacrifice is a natural obligation. Some acts of religion are obligatory, but marks of respect similar to them may also be shown to creatures (e.g., customary offerings, praises), whereas no kind of sacrifice may be offered to a creature. Some acts of religion are reserved to God, but they have no rite that is peculiar to the worship of God and that may not be exercised by all (e.g., acts of adoration), whereas sacrifice has a service reserved to God and which only priests can perform. Sacraments are primarily for the welfare of man; sacrifice is primarily for the honor of God. Non-sacrificial acts of religion may be performed in the name of an individual (e.g., adoration), whereas sacrifice is in the name of the community; other acts of religion may signify dependence on God for temporal and corporal things (e.g., offering of first-fruits), but sacrifice signifies the dependence of the soul itself on God for existence and beatitude.

Special Duties from Canon Law of Those Who Have Care of Souls.—(a) Bishops have grave obligations of residing in their see or diocese (Canon 338), of attending to the instruction of their flock (Canons 1327, 336), of applying the Mass pro populo (Canon 339), of making a diocesan report (Canon 340), of confirming and of ordaining worthy candidates (Canon 785), of visiting their dioceses (Canon 343), of making the ad limina visit (Canons 340, 342), and of calling a diocesan synod at least every tenth year (Canon 356).

(b) Pastors must reside generally in their parish (Canon 465), and, if lawfully absent, they must make provision for the sick calls and other spiritual necessities of their flocks. They must preach the word of God on Sundays and holydays, and it would be a serious matter to neglect this duty for a considerable time (e.g., a whole month) without good reason (Canon 1344). It is also a serious obligation to attend to the necessary catechetical instruction of young and old (Canons 1330, 1332), to apply the Mass pro populo (Canon 466), and to administer the Sacraments (at least Baptism, Penance, Extreme Unction) to those in grave spiritual need (see 1167). Pastors are also obliged to know their flock, to visit the sick and dying, to correct abuses, to see that the customary administration of the Sacraments and the usual church functions are attended to, to watch over the schooling of the children, and to direct the temporalities and attend to the reports and records of the parish. The duties of chaplains of hospitals, institutions, soldiers, etc., are similar to those of pastors, but in particular cases the former are subject to special prescriptions or to local usage or to rules made by the Ordinary.

(c) Assistant pastors are subject in the care of souls to the instruction and direction of the parish-priest. Their particular duties are known from the diocesan statutes, the letters of the Ordinary, and the commission of the pastor. Regularly, they are bound to reside in the parish rectory and to assist the pastor or supply for him in all the parish work, the Mass pro populo excepted (Canon 476).

Duties of Parish-Priests as to Baptism.—(a) Before Baptism.—Baptismal water should be blessed, added to or renewed, as the ritual regulations of one’s place require; the faithful should be frequently admonished in sermons of the serious duty of having their infants baptized as soon as possible (Canon 770); the people should also be told (especially midwives, physicians and surgeons) how lay Baptism is to be given validly (Canon 743).

(b) At the Time of Baptism.—Converts preparing for Baptism should be well instructed in the principal religious truths (viz, those contained in the Creed), and precepts (viz., the laws of the Decalogue and of the Church, see 914 sqq.), and prayers (viz, the Our Father, the acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition); and they should learn the nature and effects of Baptism. The parish-priest may delegate a deacon to baptize solemnly in his place, if there is a sufficient reason, as when he himself is impeded by sickness, absence, or occupation (Canon 741).

(c) After Baptism.—The pastor in virtue of his office has the responsibility of attending to the registration of baptisms in the proper book (Canon 777). The registration should be made without delay—that is, before the sponsors have departed, or immediately after the ceremony, or at least on the same day, if possible; the entry should be made accurately and legibly. The duty of keeping proper baptismal records is considered grave, since important evils would follow on their neglect.

The Minister of Consecration.—(a) Qualifications.—Every priest and only a priest can consecrate validly, for only to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood were spoken the words of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me.” But only those priests can consecrate lawfully who have the faculty of celebrating Mass (see 2709).

(b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.—Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration. Small crumbs in the ciborium and small drops of wine on the inner side of the chalice are consecrated, unless excluded by the priest’s intention; but drops of wine on the outside of the chalice should be considered unconsecrated, since it is unlawful to consecrate what is not contained in the chalice.

Externally, bread and wine must be physically present to the priest, that is, so within his reach or range that according to human usage they can be correctly designated by the demonstrative pronoun “this” used in the form. Accordingly, they must be near the minister; how near cannot be mathematically defined, and authors variously assign about ten, twenty, thirty, forty and fifty paces as the extreme limit. Again, the bread and wine must not be separated from the minister by any dividing partition, such as a wall, or the altar, or perhaps even the closed door of the tabernacle, though a closed container (such as a covered ciborium or chalice) would not put the matter away from the minister’s presence. Finally, they must not be behind the minister’s back, and, even if they are before him but hidden (e.g., hosts under the corporal or chalice), the consecration is doubtful.

(c) Duties as regards Lawful Consecration.—Internally, there must be the state of grace, which the divine law prescribes, Further, one who is conscious of grave sin certainly committed and certainly unconfessed (unless inculpably omitted in confession) must go to confession beforehand, unless there be need to celebrate at once (e.g., because otherwise there will be no parochial Mass on a day of precept, or because grave scandal or defamation will result, or a dying person will be deprived of the Viaticum) and confession is impossible (i.e., there is no confessor present who has jurisdiction, or who can be resorted to without a serious inconvenience extrinsic to confession, and moreover it is very difficult on account of distance, health, weather, or other like reasons to go elsewhere to confession). Under these circumstances, he may make an act of perfect contrition and then proceed to celebrate. But one who has consecrated without confession because of such necessity must go to confession as soon as possible—i.e., within three days, or, if circumstances so require, earlier than that (e.g., if a confessor can be had the same day, but not again for a week) or later (e.g., if a confessor cannot be had for a week). These rules about confession are of grave obligation, from Church law at least (Canon 807). On account of disrespect, it seems that grave sin is committed when the celebrant is voluntarily and advertently distracted during consecration, but he should not repeat the form unless it is certain or very probable that something essential has been omitted. Externally, consecration must be made only during Mass, both species must be consecrated, a larger quantity must not be consecrated than can be conveniently used, the matter at the moment of consecration must rest on the corporal and above the stone of the altar, and a ciborium must be uncovered while its bread is being consecrated.

Inadvertent Neglect of Grave Liturgical Precept.—Is the consecration valid when the minister inadvertently neglects some grave liturgical precept as to the matter or manner of consecration?

(a) Some authors reply in the negative, because they feel that no priest has the will to consecrate in a way forbidden by the Church under pain of grave sin. According to this opinion, then, if accidentally no water were placed in the chalice, or if the chalice were unconsecrated, or if the ciborium were left off the corporal, the consecration would be invalid.

(b) Other authors distinguish as follows: if the celebrant intended not to consecrate with a material breach of grave liturgical prescription, the consecration would be null; if the celebrant had only the intention to consecrate all valid matter before him, the consecration would be valid. This latter intention, it seems, should be formed by all priests once for all, since it ensures the validity of their consecrations and is not sinful, as it does not aim to violate the rubrics, but only to provide for exceptional cases when a rubric is unintentionally violated.

The Recipient of the Eucharist.—(a) Those Who May Receive Communion.—According to divine law, every living person who has received Baptism of water is capable of receiving the Eucharist, infants and the insane not excluded. Ecclesiastical law requires other conditions, which are justified by considerations of respect for the Blessed Sacrament or other good reason. Communion may not be given, first, to those who have not the use of reason (i.e., to infants and the perpetually insane), nor to those who are unable to understand the essential truths of religion and morality (i.e., to those who have always been deaf and dumb or blind, and who are uninstructed); for, on the one hand, the Sacrament is not necessary for these persons, and, on the other hand, there is great danger of irreverence if it be given them. Secondly, Communion may not be given to those who cannot receive without grave peril of unbecoming treatment of the Sacrament, as in the case of those who cough or vomit continually or frequently, or of those who are delirious, or unconscious, or insane, But if the danger is certainly slight (e.g., if the person can swallow an unconsecrated host without spitting it out), Communion may be given, at least the Viaticum or Easter Communion. Next those persons are denied Communion who cannot receive without scandal (e.g., those who are infamous, such as prostitutes or defamers, persons intoxicated or insufficiently dressed). Finally, no one may receive Communion who has already received it that day, lest the Sacrament become common and be taken without due preparation; but exception is made when it is necessary to communicate a second time in order to comply with the divine law of receiving Viaticum or of saving the Host from profanation (Canons 853-858).

(b) Those Who Must Receive Communion.—There is a divine precept that adults receive the Eucharist worthily (John, vi. 54). It obliges per se, when one is certainly or almost certainly in proximate danger of death, unless one has recently (that is, according to some, within a week’s time) received Communion; for this Sacrament is the wayfarer’s provision for his journey to eternity. It obliges also now and then during life, since the Eucharist is man’s spiritual nourishment for the journey of life. It obliges per accidens, when Communion is necessary to avoid grave sin, for charity to self obliges one to use the means without which serious spiritual harm cannot be escaped. The church law determines the details for the fulfillment of the divine precept. All the faithful who have reached the age of reason, even though they be under seven years, must fulfill the yearly Easter duty (see 2592, 2593). In reference to First Communion, the Church requires that children who are not in danger of death must have a mental and moral fitness, consisting in a knowledge of the chief mysteries of faith and a devotion towards the Eucharist such as is possible at their time of life. In reference to the last Communion, or Viaticum, the Code declares that it is obligatory, no matter what be the cause of the danger of death; it reminds us that the duty should not be put off too long; it recommends that the Viaticum be administered even to those who had communicated the same day before the danger of death arose, and that it be given on distinct days during the danger. For children who are in danger of death it suffices that they are able to distinguish the Eucharist from ordinary food and to adore it reverently (Canons 859-865, 854).

The Sacrifice of the Mass.—In the Eucharist is contained not only a Sacrament which confers the grace of spiritual nutrition on its recipients, but also a sacrifice which offers to God Christ’s oblation as an act of adoration, thanksgiving, satisfaction and intercession. It is this sacrifice—which is one with the sacrifice of the cross, though offered unbloodily—that is known as the Mass. The chief persons who have duties in reference to the Mass are the celebrant and the assistants.

(a) The celebrant is the priest, who acts in the name and person of Christ. To say Mass validly one must have the power of Orders conferred in the presbyterate or priesthood, and must intend to consecrate (see 2701 b); to say Mass licitly one must be free from impediments which debar from Mass, such as suspension or irregularity. Strange priests who wish to say Mass are required to present a celebret or testimonial letter to the rector of the church (Canon 804), without prejudice, however, to their right to say Mass once or twice when they present themselves in clerical garb and sign the visiting priest’s book.

(b) The assistants are all those who hear Mass. Their duties were already explained in the question on the first precept of the Church (2576 sqq.). We shall confine ourselves here, therefore, to the duties of the celebrant.

The Obligation of Saying Mass.—(a) The Obligation by reason of Orders or Priesthood.—Divine law imposes on priests as a body a grave obligation of celebrating Mass with such frequency that the memory of Christ’s passion be kept alive, which is the purpose of the priesthood, according to the words: “Do this in commemoration of Me.” Divine law also imposes on each individual priest the obligation of saying Mass at frequent intervals (i.e., at least, it would seem, on the greater feasts and at dates not more than six months apart); for a priest is ordained primarily to give glory to God and to impart blessings to man by the Sacrifice of the Mass (Heb., v. 1). It seems, therefore, that a priest receives grace in vain or neglects the sacrifice (II Cor., vi. 1, II Mach., iv. 14) if he omits Mass on the most solemn occasions of the year when nearly all the faithful are accustomed to receive Communion, or if he omits it for such a notable period as more than six months. It seems that the sin is per se venial, as being opposed to fervor rather than to charity; but it may be mortal per accidens, as when serious scandal is given. There is no sin, however, if a priest has no opportunity to celebrate, or is lawfully impeded (e.g., on account of humility, scrupulosity, illness, or censure). The law of the Church recalls this obligation in Canon 805, and calls on bishops and religious superiors to exhort their subjects to say Mass at least on all Sundays and holydays. Daily Mass is quite customary today, and there might be serious scandal if without reason Mass were said only exceptionally.

(b) The Obligation by Reason of Special Offices or Duties.—Pastors are bound to say or provide Mass for their people on days of obligation as a duty of justice, and it seems on other days also as a duty of charity if there is a great need or demand and no reasonable impediment. There is an obligation of justice to celebrate Mass, if one has contracted to do so; an obligation of fidelity, if one has freely promised; an obligation of religion, if one has vowed; an obligation of obedience, if one has been lawfully commanded by one’s superior.

Dispositions for the Celebration of Mass.—(a) Dispositions of Soul.—The celebrant must be in the state of grace, and must go to confession before Mass if he has a serious sin on his conscience (see 2701 c). He must have the intention and attention which the validity of the consecration requires (2701 b), and the reverence and devotion which is due the prayers of the Mass (2153 sqq.), Voluntary and fully deliberate distractions entertained for a considerable time during the Canon seem to be seriously sinful. It is most suitable, though apparently not commanded by the Church, that Matins and Lauds be said before Mass. There is, however, a duty of religion and of charity to self to make a suitable preparation and thanksgiving; but negligence here is a light sin, unless there be contempt or serious scandal. Fifteen minutes or a half-hour is recommended by ascetical writers, and the prayers may be taken from those given in the Breviary and Missal, Internal prayer, however, is more important than external recitation (Canon 810).

(b) Dispositions of Body.—The Eucharistic or natural fast is of grave obligation for the celebration of Mass (Canon 808). The only excuses are necessity according to divine law or exemption by ecclesiastical law. Necessity occurs when one must complete the sacrifice (e.g., when after the Communion the priest notices that he consecrated one species invalidly), or must avoid scandal (e.g., when a priest remembers after going to the altar that he is not fasting), or must consecrate for the Viaticum (e.g., when there is no consecrated host for a dying person). Since the law is ecclesiastical, the Church could dispense for a grave reason (e.g., to enable a sickly priest to say Masses on Sunday at widely separated points of his missions). It is clear that the celebration of Mass calls for cleanness of body, suitableness of dress, neatness and rubrical correctness of vestments (Canon 811). The omission of a principal vestment (i.e., blessed alb, stole or chasuble) is a serious sin, except in grave necessity; the omission of minor vestments (e.g., amice) is a venial sin, unless there is a just reason. The color of the day is not gravely obligatory, except by reason of scandal, and a good reason makes it lawful to use another color.

Gravity of Regulations Concerning Circumstances of Mass.—Serious disrespect or serious scandal is caused by disregard of important regulations concerning the circumstances of the Mass. Hence, the following rules oblige under grave sin, though exceptions are permitted for cases of grave or very grave necessity.

(a) The Time of Mass.—Mass may not be said on Good Friday, nor private Masses on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday. Only one Mass may be said a day, except on Christmas Day and All Souls’ Day, and on other days when there is reason for bination or trination allowed by the Church. Ordinarily the hour for beginning Mass should not be earlier than one hour before dawn (i.e., in the latitude of New York from about 1:27 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., according to the season), nor later than one hour after noon. But the time is to be understood morally, and it is not a grave sin in being earlier or later than the times fixed, unless there is a difference of an entire hour (e.g., if one began Mass at 2:00 p.m.) and not just excuse or dispensation. The Holy See has extended to local Ordinaries the power to permit the daily celebration of Mass after noon, if the spiritual good of a considerable number of the faithful demands it (Sacram Communionem). The Holy See has also granted permission to Ordinaries to allow the celebration of an evening Mass on Palm Sunday accompanied by the blessing of palms and procession. On Holy Thursday the Mass of the Lord’s Supper must be celebrated at the most convenient hour, but not before 4:00 p.m. and not after 9:00 p.m.; Ordinaries may grant permission for one or even two low Masses (besides the principal Mass) to be celebrated in churches and public oratories, and for one in semi-public oratories within the same hours, 4:00-9:00 p.m. The proper hour for the Easter Vigil is that which permits the Mass of the Easter Vigil to be started around midnight. Permission may be granted to conduct the vigil at a time not before sunset (Dispositions and Regulations concerning the Holy Week Liturgy, Feb. 1, 1957, Sacred Congregation of Rites). One Christmas may be said at midnight. It is a serious sin to say Mass in less than a quarter of an hour, and a private Mass should not be prolonged beyond a half-hour.

(b) Place.—Mass may not be celebrated regularly except in a church or oratory that is at least blessed and is not polluted, execrated or interdicted. It must be said on an altar, and it would be a serious sin, except in grave or very grave necessity, to celebrate without at least one altar cloth or one lighted wax candle, or without a rubrical chalice, paten, or corporal (Canons 822, 823).

(c) Rites.—The principal rubrics of the Mass are gravely obligatory, for example, to use an acolyte unless excused by dispensation or necessity, to say each prayer of the Canon, and each part outside the Canon that occurs in every Mass (e.g., the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Gospel), to perform the main liturgical actions (e.g., the Offertory, the breaking of the host, the purification of the chalice). The secondary rubrics oblige under venial sin (see Canons 803, 812-819).

Is it Lawful to Discontinue a Mass?—(a) To terminate Mass before the end has been reached is unlawful unless there be a serious reason; otherwise, disrespect is shown the Holy Sacrifice. A grave reason (e.g., sudden sickness) suffices if Mass be discontinued before the Consecration; a most grave reason (i.e., danger of death or of profanation of the Sacrament) if Mass be discontinued between the Consecration and the Communion. But a Mass that is broken off after the Consecration and before the Communion must be completed by the celebrant or another, at least if this can be done within an hour from the time of cessation; else the sacrifice is mutilated.

(b) To interrupt Mass is also unlawful without serious cause. Thus, a grave reason excuses an interruption outside the Canon, for example, to preach a sermon after the Gospel or Communion; but only a very grave reason excuses an interruption during the Canon, for example, a sick call to give a necessary Sacrament (Baptism, Penance, Extreme Unction, or Viaticum) to a dying person.

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.

Mass Stipends.—It is not unlawful to receive a stipend for the application of Mass, but irreligion, injustice, avarice, scandal and disobedience must be avoided. (a) Irreligion is committed if the stipend is offered or taken as the price of the Mass, or if Mass is said only because of the stipend, or is requested only for the sake of human favor (see 2333); (b) injustice is committed, if an excessive stipend is exacted; (c) avarice is committed when one is over-anxious about large stipends; (d) scandal is given when there is commercialism or the appearance of it in dealing with stipends; (e) disobedience is incurred when the laws of the Church on the amount of a stipend, the number of stipends that may be taken, their distribution, satisfaction, etc., are violated (see Canons 824-844). It is forbidden to require two stipends for one Mass, or one stipend for mere celebration and another for application.

As regards Mass. - "A Bishop can dispense for celebrating on another altar, or in a church not designated by the founder, when another just cause is present." L. 60; l. 6, n. 329. - "He can dispense for just causes both with himself and with others for celebrating after midday." L. 61; l. 6, n. 344. - They can celebrate not only in their own episcopal house, but also in lay houses, in which on occasion of visitation or a journey they are received with hospitality, and when, in cases permitted by law, or by special license of the Apostolic See, being absent from the house of their own habitation, they therefore make a stay in another's house after the manner of a similar habitation.

But not only can they themselves, wherever they dwell, celebrate even on a portable altar, but they can also permit another Mass for their own convenience; and the faithful hearing either one satisfy the precept. S. R. C., 22 Aug. 1818; 8 June 1896; L. 63; l. 6, n. 358; Bened. XIV, de Sacr. miss., l. 3, c. 6, n. 6. - They can grant the faculty of celebrating outside a church in a non-sacred place, if grave and proportionate causes are present; and in private houses, from just and reasonable causes, but by way of an act and in a decent place. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912; L. 64; l. 6, n. 344, 359; Lucidi, de Visit. Sacror. Limin., vol. 1, p. 97, n. 108. - When Bishops have died, Masses can be celebrated through the whole morning in the larger hall of their own residence, where the body lies exposed. S. R. C., 3 Apr. 1894; Ferraris, Supplementum, v. Missa de Requie, n. 7; E. M.

As regards the Eucharist. - Besides public churches, Regulars also have private oratories. Now they can admit others in both, both for celebrating and for hearing the prescribed Mass. In public churches they retain the Most Holy Sacrament. But the license of the Ordinary is necessary for regulars, even exempt ones, so that they can publicly expose the Most Holy Sacrament uncovered; yet this is by no means required either for exposing the sacred Eucharist veiled, with the people present, or for exposing it uncovered, seculars being excluded. From the Constitutions of Julius II, Paul III, and St. Pius V, regulars can distribute the Most Holy Eucharist daily and to individual faithful, not even excepting Easter day. Regulars cannot in any way be prohibited by the Bishop from distributing the Most Holy Eucharist in their churches from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday.

Thus S. C. C., 9 July 1644; S. C. C., 27 Nov. 1912. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 9, c. 15, 16; l. 11, c. 14. Pius VI, 14 Jan. 1783, granted to the Congregation of Purity the faculty of celebrating two hours after midday and before dawn; and all who have communication in the privileges of regulars enjoy this privilege. "Regulars can celebrate one hour before dawn; wherefore they can celebrate Mass three hours before sunrise. Indeed, when some just cause is present, they can celebrate immediately after two hours after midnight. And this holds only for their own churches; in which, however, secular priests can also use a privilege of this sort. Moreover Eugene IV granted to regulars license of celebrating three hours after midday, yet from a just cause."

L. 122; Salmant., tr. 15, c. 7, p. 4, n. 94, 45; Pellizzar., Manuale Regul., tr. 8, c. 2, n. 97. But the same Holy Doctor hands down the opposite, l. 6, n. 342. Moreover in this latter place, n. 344, the Holy Doctor affirms that the faculty is present to all superiors of dispensing, in some particular case, from a reasonable cause, concerning the hour of Mass, "privilege set aside, toward their own religious, since they are their Ordinaries." Mendicants, at least superiors or prelates, have the privilege of blessing sacred vestments. L. 62, 121, 123; l. 6, n. 239, 240, 300, 357, 360, 363, 376, 378, 381; H. A. tr. 12, n. 41; Lugo, de Euchar., d. 18, n. 49-50; Diana, tom. 2, tr. 2 de Praec. div. et eccles. sacrae commun., r. 22, 23; Compend. Privil. Soc. Iesu, n. 409; E. M.

In how many ways is simony of ecclesiastical law committed? - In the following ways. 1. By exchanging benefices, making transactions about them, making pacts, resigning them in favor of another, reserving pensions in them, without license of the superior. C. Quaesitum 5, de Rer. perm.; C. Constituimus 4; C. Super eo 7, de Trans.; C. Nobis 27, de Sim.; C. Ex multis 9, q. 3, caus. 1. The reason of the law is the danger lest this be done in view of a temporal thing, since these include some advantage. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 1 ad 5, a. 4 ad 3.

Add: to sell benefices, even according to that which is temporal in them, namely according to the right of receiving fruits. "Yet more probably," says St. Alphonsus, n. 70, "they say that it is simony by divine law from S. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2... as is gathered from C. Si quis 15, caus. 1, q. 3, and from C. Ex diligenti 17, de Simon." Cf. also L. 76. Add also: to sell the right of patronage of presenting to a benefice. C. De iure 16; C. Praeterea 23, de Iure patr. Yet Lessius, Palaus, Laymann, etc., affirm that this sale is forbidden also by divine law. L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. Transactions concerning the right of patronage and concerning another spiritual thing annexed, an oratory, a temple, etc., are likewise prohibited, if namely on one side something spiritual is given and on the other something temporal, C. Praeterea 9, 10, de Trans. But they are licit if on both sides something spiritual or annexed to the spiritual is given. C. Ad quaestiones 6, de Rer. perm. "The right of patronage cannot be sold per se, nor given in fief; but it passes with the village which is sold or ceded." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 3. "Trent, sess. 24, c. 14, de R., commands Bishops not to permit any payment or promise for admission to possession of a benefice, as having the stain of simony or suspicion of avarice, any custom to the contrary being rejected. The Council permits only that, if there is a custom, something be given to be converted to pious uses." L. 99; C. Cum in Ecclesiae 9; C. In tantum 36, de Simonia.

2. By giving or accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, before or after, on occasion of an examination for parochial care, for example, when there is a question of choosing a pastor in a competition, from Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R. On occasion of the examination; for to give or receive for the examination itself would be simony of divine law. From the Decree of S. C. Cons., 15 Feb. 1612, synodal examiners and parochial consultors, on occasion of their office, neither before nor after, can receive anything, by the oath taken, even offered under the appearance of a gift. Likewise any gift whatsoever is prohibited to be received by ministers of whatever order in the Roman curia. Ord. serv. in Rom. Cur., Norm. comm., c. 3.

3. By accepting anything, even spontaneously offered, on occasion of the conferral of an order, or of letters for the order itself, or even of first tonsure, from the same Trent, sess. 21, c. 1, de R. Yet there is excepted there the tenth part of a gold coin for the notary, if no salary has been established for him and custom permits him to receive it. But the Sacred Congregation, 8 Oct. 1678, permitted Bishops to receive a candle, and also a cloth from those to be ordained priests; indeed the same Congregation, deputed by Innocent XI, also fixed the emoluments which are required for dimissorial and testimonial letters, etc. "It is granted to Bishops in dispensations (of marriages) to accept something to be distributed in alms, provided that nothing comes to themselves or their own, by way of penalty or commutation, but not by way of sustenance. For this is forbidden to them from... Trent, sess. 25, c. 18, de R." L. 96.

It is not permitted to a Bishop in the visitation of a diocese to receive gifts besides victuals. Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 3, de R.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1502 seqq. Innocentian Tax: Innocent XI, Decree of 8 Oct. 1678, established what emoluments could be required for various acts and writings of non-contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But with the conditions of times having changed, S. C. C., 10 June 1896, issued a new Decree concerning this matter. According to the norms of this Decree, a description or schedule of these taxes is to be made in individual dioceses and transmitted for approval to the same S. C. C. In France, a determined tax for sacred worship to be imposed on the faithful from obligation is not approved. Secretariat of State, 8 Oct. 1907.

4. By selling or buying temporal ecclesiastical offices ordered to sacred things, of procurator, sacristan, steward, defender of the Church; this indeed has been done in view of religion. C. Si quis 3; C. Salvator 8, c. 1, q. 3; Suarez, c. 29. But to sell spiritual ecclesiastical offices, for example of vicar general, coadjutor of a pastor, chaplain, is simoniacal by its nature.

5. By selling a part of a cemetery; indeed it will be simony of divine law if it is sold as a sacred place, or if the right of burial is sold. Yet the right of a tomb can be bought, so that someone may be buried in such a place, because then burial would not be sold even by reason of the earth, but the price would be required by reason of the burden which is assumed, of not burying others there; this indeed is something temporal, and law does not prohibit it; indeed usage approves it. The same must be said if more is required for carrying a silver cross instead of an iron one; for one is not of greater blessing than the other, but this is a worldly honor, which certainly can be sold. C. Abolendae 13, de Sepult.; L. 71; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 3 ad 2.

6. By selling blessed oil or sacred chrism, even according to its physical species; yet the usage has prevailed in cathedral churches that something is accepted from particular churches for compensating the expenses which have been made in procuring the matter. C. Placuit 102, c. 1, q. 1; C. Ea quae 16, de Simonia. Nor indeed is it permitted to accept anything for administration of the sacraments beyond that which has been established by custom and ordination of the superior. Cf. 505, 512. Likewise every shameful profit, trade, and species of business with stipends of Masses is prohibited. S. C. C., 11 May 1904.

7. By requiring money for admission into religion, not for the state itself, which would be simony of divine law, but by reason of sustenance, unless either law, or custom, or the poverty of the monastery excuses. Cf. 518.

8. By accepting something for the erection, institution, communication, or aggregation of Confraternities, against the Constitution Quaecumque of Clement VIII. And reception into a Confraternity will be invalid if anything is received contrary to the laws of the Church, even under the title of alms.

9. By publishing Indulgences and other spiritual graces, some wage having been accepted, Trent, sess. 21, c. 9, de R., and by making gain from the concession or publication of Indulgences and other spiritual graces. St. Pius V, Const. Quum plenum, 2 Jan. 1569. By several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences it was forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale. And if otherwise is done, the indulgences are lost. Decret., tit. de Simonia, l. 5, tit. 3; Struggl 23; L. 68, 69, 72, 74, 77; E. M.

Can a judge render sentence when the law itself is certainly unjust and inequitable? - If it concerns a civil law contrary only to ecclesiastical laws in which the Supreme Pontiff can dispense, as, for example, is the law of ecclesiastical immunity, the judge can and must, if judgment must be rendered, speaking in itself, seek the due faculty from the Holy See, or from the Bishop of the place, according to the various laws and various cases that occur. But he will easily obtain this faculty, since it is especially expedient for the good of society that there be honest judges in it. The reason for seeking the faculty is the usurpation of the rights of the Church which otherwise would be had, and the public scandal to be guarded against.

If it concerns a civil law contrary to divine and natural laws, then either the judge must command something directly against this right, or he must only apply some penalty. The first is evidently not lawful, and thus he ought rather to relinquish his office than to oblige by military force a concubine to remain at home with her lover. Thus also it is not lawful to render a sentence of divorce according to the law, namely, by which the bond of marriage is dissolved, power being granted to the spouses to enter new nuptials. For this is openly against natural, divine, and ecclesiastical right. For as it is inequitable to execute an inequitable matter, so it is inequitable to command its execution. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 60. a. 5.

The other seems to some also altogether illicit, because it is intrinsically evil to condemn an innocent person, namely when the law itself is evidently unjust, whose transgression is punished. But to others it seems that it can be excused. For to decree some temporal penalty is not always evil in itself; and there is present a most grave reason on the part of the judge, lest he be compelled to renounce his office, and on the part of consenting society, for which it is better that judges be good rather than bad, scandal always having been removed, either from approved custom and the practice of the fearful, or from due faculty previously sought. And thus he can decree a fine because of the omitted formality of civil marriage, which the Church tolerates in this sense, scandal always having been removed, as was said.

But although there is question only of decreeing a penalty, one must distinguish between penalty and penalty. For if it concerns the penalty of death, for example, mutilation, etc., since neither the person himself can yield his right, nor can society by its authority sanction such a penalty, it is altogether inequitable to impose it. "For positive right has place where, as regards natural right, it makes no difference whether it is done thus or otherwise." S. Th. l. c.

But if it concerns some monetary penalty, or another similar one, since anyone in this matter can yield his right, and society can consent, the judge surely can impose some slight penalty of this kind, lest he be compelled to renounce his office with grave damage to himself and to society itself. Consent is then reasonably presumed. Yet this also seems to be limited to the case in which it does not concern a law directly against nature, although it is rather harsh and not sufficiently just. For since the sentence of a judge is not any declaration whatever, but an authoritative one, authoritatively to confirm a law against nature, even by determining a monetary and slight penalty, is against nature. It is against nature to condemn to death a Christian who refuses to adore idols; it is against nature to condemn him to a penalty and fine, even of only five small coins, because he did not wish to genuflect before an idol. Certainly of such a judgment it cannot be said that it is a "definition or determination of the just or of right," nor can it be said of the judge that he is "interpreter of justice" or "animated justice." S. Th. 2. 2. q. 66. a. 1; a. 5 ad 1; q. 67. a. 3; E. M.

What as regards celebration of Mass in particular? - It is to be noted from St. Thomas "that although a priest does not recollect that he said some of those things which he ought to have said, nevertheless he ought not to be disturbed in mind because of this; for one who says many things does not recollect all things which he said, unless perhaps he apprehends something in saying under the aspect of already said; for thus something is made memorable. Hence if someone attentively thinks about that which he says, but nevertheless does not think that he says it, he afterwards does not much recollect that he said it; for thus something is made subject to memory, insofar as it is received under the aspect of past.... Yet if it is probably established for the priest that he has omitted some things, if indeed they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, I do not think that because of this he ought to resume by changing the order of the sacrifice, but he ought to proceed further. But if he is made certain that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, namely the form of consecration, since the form of consecration is of the necessity of the sacrament just as the matter also is, the same seems to be done as was said in the defect of matter, namely that it be resumed from the form of consecration and the rest be repeated in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be changed." 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 5. This doctrine of St. Thomas agrees with the rubric of the Roman Missal, de Defectibus in celebr. etc., tit. 5, de Defectibus formae, n. 2: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not on account of this be disturbed. Yet if it is certainly established for him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, i.e., the form of consecration or a part, let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order. But if he very probably doubts that he omitted something, let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition. But if they are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume, but let him proceed further." Note the difference which is had according to the rubric cited here for the twofold case in which it is certainly established for the priest that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, or he only very probably doubts that he has omitted something of this kind. For in the first case it is said that "let him resume the form itself and pursue the rest in order." But in the other case it is said: "let him repeat the form at least under tacit condition."

What is a sacrifice? - A sacrifice is: The offering of a sensible thing made to God, by the ministry of a priest, by which, in destroying or changing that thing, we profess that God is Lord of life and death. Trent sess. 22, ch. 3; St. Thomas 2.2, q. 86, a. 1.

Is the Eucharist a sacrifice, and what kind? - Resp. It is clear from Trent sess. 22, ch. 1, can. 1, that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice. - And from the same Trent ib., ch. 2, it is clear that this sacrifice is essentially the same as the sacrifice of the Cross, and differs from it only accidentally. For the Victim of each is the same; the Priest is the same, Christ offering in the Eucharist by the ministry of priests; each is effected by the pouring out of blood; only the manner of offering is different. For in the former the pouring out of blood was real and Christ was immolated bloodily; in the latter the pouring out of blood is mystical and Christ is immolated bloodlessly. Suarez disp. 75, sect. 5.

But the sacrifice is latreutic, because it is the most absolute act of latria. For it is offered to God in recognition of His supreme dominion. It is eucharistic, because it pertains especially to giving thanks to God for benefits conferred. It is propitiatory, because it is offered to God for obtaining pardon of sins. It is expiatory or satisfactory, since it is offered to God for obtaining also the remission of punishment due to sins, namely temporal punishment; for the remission of eternal punishment is not the effect of this sacrifice, since it is not remitted except when mortal sin has been destroyed. It is impetratory, for it is offered to God also for obtaining other necessities and benefits. Trent ib., chs. 2, 3, cans. 3, 5; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 1. - The Eucharist, as sacrifice, is customarily called Mass, from the word mittere, either because at the end of the celebration of this sacrifice the people are dismissed with those words, Ite, Missa est, or because Christ in it is the Host sent by God. - E. M.

Note: The Mass does not have the power of remitting sins per se immediately, nor of immediately effecting an increase of sanctifying grace, but only of obtaining helps for penance by which they are remitted, and of obtaining helps for performing acts by which grace already acquired is increased; and also of obtaining other goods, both spiritual and temporal. But it does have power per se immediately to remit the punishments of sins for just men for whom it is offered, and also for souls dwelling in Purgatory. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2, can. 3; sess. 25, Decree on Purgatory, at the beginning; Lugo disp. 19, n. 153; L. 311.

As satisfactory, the Sacrifice is infallibly efficacious, if there is no obstacle in the subject, yet in that mode and measure in which the fruit belongs to it from divine institution, and more or less according to the dispositions of the subject. As impetratory, it is also infallibly efficacious, but with the limitations and conditions which impetration has. Hence the fruit of propitiation, which is by way of impetration, can be impeded by the obstacle of the bad disposition of him for whom the sacrifice is offered, and by the freedom of the man himself. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. And from the greater or lesser guilt of fault it can well happen that God is not altogether appeased unless the sacrifice is offered to God several times. But impetration, as regards other gifts of the natural and supernatural order conducing to eternal salvation, is not infallible unless the ordinary conditions are present both in the one for whom it is sought through the sacrifice, and in the thing which is sought, and in the manner of seeking. Impetration through the sacrifice, for this reason, consequently is not infallible. - Lugo disp. 19, sect. 9; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5, a. 7 ad 2. "We must not confuse the power which the sacrifice of the Mass has for expiating and purging from sins with the power for merely obtaining.... That power for obtaining has a formally different term from that which the power for satisfying or expiating has. For the former tends to move the liberality of God, from whom it obtains goods; but the latter tends to clemency, or to appeasing God, lest He be angry, indignant, and bring evil.... For God is appeased by the sacrifice, not as impetratory, but as propitiatory; for precisely as such it tends to appease. Therefore we admit that God granting help for contrition is moved also by the sacrifice as it is impetratory; nevertheless we say that some effect intervenes there which corresponds to the same sacrifice as it is propitiatory. For because of sins, God, retaining just indignation and aversion, was deservedly denying those helps, at least more abundant ones, for contrition; but when the sacrifice has been offered He is appeased, and, indignation having been laid aside through clemency, He grants from liberality the helps which He would deny while unappeased. Hence the sacrifice as propitiatory indirectly contributes to obtaining helps, insofar as it directly removes the obstacle of indignation which stood in the way of their being granted. Therefore it contributes to destroying sins not by obtaining only, but by propitiating and appeasing, which is the proper effect of sacrifice as it is propitiatory." Lugo disp. 19, n. 141.

What are the principal parts of the Mass? - There are three: the Oblation, by which the sacrifice is as it were prepared; the Consecration, in which the essence of the sacrifice is had, for in it is had the mystical slaughtering of the victim, Suarez disp. 75, sect. 5; and the Consummation, by which the sacrifice is completed and perfected. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4.

Hence none of these can be omitted without enormous sacrilege. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 1, 2. - Wherefore if the priest has omitted the oblation, he must mentally supply it before the consecration. Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss., l. 3, c. 18, n. 5. If either species has not been consecrated, before the consummation of the other it must altogether be consecrated; after the consummation of the other, each must be consecrated, if this can be done without any scandal and within a brief time, i.e., within about an hour; otherwise it would not seem to be the same sacrifice. Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 6 ad 4; L. 335. Cf. 323, 329 seqq. Finally, if the celebrant dies or is affected by some illness before the consummation of the wine, or after the consecration of the bread, and cannot continue the sacrifice within a brief time, the Mass must be completed by another priest, even one not fasting or one to be avoided, from that place where the other ceased, if this can be done within a brief time, within an hour, and without most grave inconvenience. But if the one who consecrated recovers, even after several hours he can continue and complete the sacrifice. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 29, a. 2 ad 3, says: "If after the consecration of the bread the priest dies, another priest can proceed to the consecration of the wine, beginning where the former left off, or even begin from the beginning over other matter." Yet when one whole hour has elapsed, the obligation of seeking another priest ceases, since it is no longer judged the same sacrifice. But if the priest has failed before the consecration or after the consummation, there is no necessity of supplying or continuing anything, because in the first case the sacrifice has not yet been begun, and in the other it has already been completed. Rubrics of the Missal ib., tit. 10, n. 3. - La Croix 548; L. 305, 354, 355; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4; q. 83, a. 4, 6 ad 1, ad 3; Suarez disp. 71, sect. 3; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 10.

Note: These things are in the Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 4, n. 8: "If the matter which would have to be placed, by reason of a defect either of bread or of wine, could in no way be had, if this is before the consecration of the Body, one must not proceed further; if after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is detected when the one has already been consecrated, then if it can in no way be had, one must proceed and the Mass must be completed, yet so that the words and signs which pertain to the deficient species are omitted. But if by waiting for some little while it can be had, one must wait, lest the sacrifice remain imperfect." Hence Gavantus here, and Azor, note that if the deficient species could be had only with very great difficulty, and a notable offense of the people would arise from this, the Mass must be completed, because the natural law of avoiding scandal prevails over the positive divine law of making the sacrifice integral. L. 306. But what must be done if a fly or spider, or something else poisonous or which provokes vomiting, has fallen into the chalice, you have in the Rubrics de Defectibus, tit. 10, nn. 5-7.

For whom can the sacrifice of the Mass be offered? - It can be offered for all those for whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered, unless the Church forbids it for someone. For "the fruits of the bloody oblation are most abundantly received through this unbloody one." Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. Wherefore it can be offered: 1. For baptized wayfarers; also infants, or energumens, or sinners not excommunicated, even for unbelievers, not only generally for all, but also for individual unbelievers, even for kings, insofar as it is propitiatory, expiatory, and impetratory. Trent ib. - 2. For souls in Purgatory, to whom it is profitable from the infallible promise of Christ, insofar as it is expiatory. Trent ib. and sess. 25, Decree De Purgatorio. Nevertheless the satisfactory fruit is not infallibly applied to that soul for whom the priest celebrated Mass. S. C. Indulg., July 28, 1840, n. 283. And how far it helps each one is among the divine secrets. Cf. n. 619. - 3. For the Blessed, insofar as it is eucharistic.

Trent sess. 22, ch. 3. - But it is forbidden to offer it for the excommunicated. Benedict XIV, Const. Ex quo, Mar. 1, 1756, § 27. Yet for an excommunicated tolerated person, a priest can licitly offer Mass both in his own name, as a private person, and more probably in the name of the Church as a minister of the Church. The reason is that it is granted to the faithful to communicate with them, even in divine things.

But for an excommunicated person to be avoided, a priest can still licitly offer Mass in his own name or ex opere operantis; but by no means in the name of the Church, or ex opere operantis of the Church herself, whose application of fruit would be illicit and invalid, and ex opere operato of the sacrifice of the Church, whose application of fruit would be illicit but not invalid, if he is capable, since the priest has this power by force of order. - It is forbidden to apply Mass for heretics, whether now dead or living, unless for the living it is applied to obtain their conversion to the true faith. Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1767; Apr. 19, 1837; Apr. 7, 1875. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Mass is by no means to be offered publicly for those who are alien from the communion of the Church by profession of heresy. - C. 28, 38, de Sent. excomm.; La Croix 33; L. 308, 309; St. Thomas 4, dist. 12, q. 2, a. 2, q. 2 ad 4; E. M.

How many kinds of fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass are there? - The fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass can be considered in three ways: 1. on the part of the cause, 2. on the part of the good itself which is to be obtained through the Mass, 3. on the part of the person for whom such a good is obtained, or to whom the Mass is applied.

On the part of the cause, one is ex opere operantis, namely that which is conferred in view of the prayer, devotion, and merit of the celebrant and of others cooperating; another is ex opere operato, which is conferred in view of the merits of Christ and by force of His promise. From this it happens that a sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is not more profitable than if it were offered by an unworthy minister; because the sacrifice, viewed thus, is the work of Christ, and the fruit flows only from the merits of Christ, and in this respect the priest does not bear his own person, but Christ's. Wherefore in this sense it can rightly be said that the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as the Mass of a good priest. But otherwise it must be said if merit ex opere operantis is attended to; for the more worthy the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed while he performs the rites and prayers of the Church, the greater the fruit of the Mass becomes. But the priest offers the sacrifice bearing the person of the whole Church, since "he consecrates the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of the whole Church." St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 37, a. 4 ad 2. And thus under the name of the celebrating minister also comes the Church, insofar as she herself offers through the minister. "Whence I infer," says Suarez disp. 79, sect. 2, dictum III, "that this value proceeding from the Church is better called ex opere operantis, as Cordoba and others speak, than ex opere operato, as Scotus and others speak.... And hence it is inferred that this value can increase and diminish, according as there have been holier persons in the Church." Therefore the priest offers the Sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ, the principal offerer; in the name of the Church, to whom Christ left this sacrifice; and in his own name, as a private person. Trent sess. 22, chs. 1, 2. "After the priests, all the faithful offer the sacrifice mediately through the hands of the priests, in three ways indeed: 1. in a general way, namely through the priests, who, by offering the sacrifice as public ministers, are said to offer for any faithful person whatever; 2. in a more special way, by procuring that priests celebrate for themselves; 3. by assisting at the sacrifice." St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 307.

On the part of the thing, one fruit is meritorious, namely the merit which is had from it by the priest celebrating and by those assisting; another is propitiatory, and is the remission of sins, not indeed per se and immediately, but through the obtaining of help for penance by which sins are remitted, Trent sess. 22, ch. 2; another is satisfactory or expiatory, insofar as it per se immediately remits the punishments of sins for just men for whom it is offered, both in this life and in Purgatory, Trent sess. 25, ch. 1, not the whole at once, but according to the measure established by God and corresponding to the dispositions of the man; finally another is impetratory, and is first the obtaining of helps for performing acts by which sanctifying grace is increased in us; moreover it is the obtaining of other spiritual goods, and also temporal goods, Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. And this impetration, insofar as it is from Christ, is ex opere operato; insofar as it is from the sacrificing priest and the offering Church, it is ex opere operantis. Suarez disp. 79; Lugo disp. 19, sect. 9.

On the part of the subject, or of those to whom it is applied, one fruit is general, another special, another most special. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, as he works in the name of Christ and in the name of the whole Church. Trent sess. 22, ch. 6. And all the faithful indeed, although the priest does not think of them, receive this fruit ex opere operato; but it is attributed to them only by way of impetration, insofar as impetration also includes propitiation; not however, as seems more common and more probable, by way of satisfaction, because from thousands of sacrifices which are offered daily, every just man, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of immense punishment, which appears incredible. But there are not lacking those who judge that some part of the fruit ex opere operato, even satisfactory, corresponds to all the faithful, and that all the just obtain ex opere operato some remission of punishment through each and every sacrifice, by this alone, that they are said to offer insofar as they are members of the Church offering through priests, even if they themselves have no act concerning the sacrifice, nor the priest by a special intention applies the fruit of the sacrifice to them. Yet the sole denomination of offering through a certain remote and extrinsic relation does not seem sufficient for receiving the fruit of satisfaction ex opere operato. "For the fruit of the Passion of Christ is not applied ex opere operato except either through some proper action, or sensible reception, or through the special application of another. But in the present case this fruit is not given through the special application of another, as is supposed; nor here do those offering in this way receive anything through which such fruit is applied to them; nor do they do anything, because they are called offerers only habitually or extrinsically. Hence that denomination is not founded in any act of man which per se pertains to the worship of God, so that it could avail for the merit or satisfaction of the one so offering." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, par. Secundo. "Although all the faithful in some way are offerers in each Mass, insofar as the priest offers by commission of the Church, and offers in her name, which consists of all and each of the faithful, nevertheless this does not suffice so that from each Mass the just should have the fruit of remission of punishment ex opere operato. Yet it brings the effect of impetration ex opere operato, because all pray through the priest, and he also prays and offers for obtaining for all." Lugo disp. 19, n. 237. "And in this sense we say that he truly offers for all the faithful, living and dead, for whom we also wish to obtain the condonation of due punishment by way of impetration." Lugo l. c., n. 222.

Of this general fruit, those standing by at the sacrifice participate in a more abundant or more special way, and a fortiori those cooperating with it, e.g., those serving the priest, giving alms; and it is more abundant according as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating is greater. Wherefore they can be offerers in various ways, according as actually they join themselves to the priest offering, or by the intention of the Church alone. The priest in the Canon prays for those standing around and says: "for whom we offer to Thee, or who offer to Thee." Hence those who are offerers and offer must be distinguished from those for whom it is offered. The reason is "because the oblation of this sacrifice is fruitful ex opere operato. Therefore it is consonant with reason that all who truly concur in it through their own act or moral concurrence participate in this kind of fruit of such oblation. Secondly, because from this concurrence of many offerers with the minister there results as it were one moral offerer with greater devotion, reverence, and dignity. Therefore a greater fruit corresponds to it ex opere operato, other things being equal.... Therefore for this reason, some part of that fruit corresponds to individual offerers, as they are such, according to each one's devotion. Thirdly, just as the use of a sacrament consists in reception, so the notion of sacrifice consists in oblation. But all who receive a sacrament participate in its fruit. Therefore similarly all offerers through some proper concurrence or action participate in the fruit of the sacrifice." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, par. Quarto.

Hence Suarez infers that a twofold fruit corresponds to the priest himself ex opere operato: one to him as he is a private person, the other as he offers in the name of Christ and in His person.

The former increases from the better disposition of the offerer; the latter is always equal, because it always corresponds to Christ offering. But in reality it seems that only the oblation of the priest brings fruit ex opere operato, precisely insofar as he acts in the name of Christ. For Trent sess. 22, ch. 2, founds the efficacy of this sacrifice on this, that now the same Host and the same one offering by the ministry of priests is present, who offered Himself on the cross. "Therefore, because the priest alone offers in the person of Christ, it follows that the oblation has this kind of power and efficacy, not insofar as it is from the person of the priest, but insofar as it is from Christ." Lugo disp. 19, n. 233; Trent sess. 22, chs. 1, 6. And, although several hear Mass or minister at it, each one will receive the whole fruit proportioned to his oblation and devotion, no otherwise than if he alone were hearing or ministering. And thus this general fruit is extensively infinite or indefinite. And for those ministering and assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass in this way, there comes not only a fuller fruit of impetration ex opere operato, but also satisfactory fruit. But since, as is clear from the Offertory, it is offered also for souls existing in Purgatory, this satisfactory fruit is applied from the oblation of the Church's sacrifice of the Mass also for them, whether they are fewer or more.

The special fruit is that which comes to him or those to whom the priest specially applies the sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the sacrifice as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing obstructs, as it is satisfactory. This special fruit is customarily also called ministerial and middle.

The most special or personal fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators whatever receive from the sacrifice their own wholly special fruit, much more must the priest who sacrifices receive this. Moreover, "the oblation of the priest, as it is made by him representing the person of Christ, is properly the actual sacrifice, or the sacrificing itself. Therefore to it especially corresponds the fruit ex opere operato, because as such the oblation is properly sacrificial, infinite in its own kind and always clean and pleasing to God." Suarez disp. 79, sect. 8, p. Tertio. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain. Yet this is certain: that the priest cannot apply this most special fruit to another so as to receive another stipend from this; understand this, however, unless this very thing is done with the consent of the one giving the other stipend. - Lugo disp. 19; Suarez disp. 79; L. 311, 312; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 6; E. M.

Does a Requiem Mass benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints? - Resp. In the negative as regards the substance, or on the part of the sacrifice; but certainly as regards accidentals, or on the part of the prayers, the defect of which can be supplied by the devotion of the one who says the Mass or orders it to be said, or by the intercession of the Saint whose suffrage is implored in the Mass. - L. 309; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 71, a. 9; E. M.

Is the value and fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass infinite? - "It must be noted that one thing is the value, another the fruit of the Mass. The value is that efficacy which the Mass has from the dignity of the one offering and of the thing offered, for conferring goods on the one offering and on those for whom it is offered. But the fruits are the goods themselves which God confers in view of the sacrifice. Hence value differs from fruit as cause from effect." L. 312. Wherefore here fruit is taken for the fruit which is actually received. - Now the value of the sacrifice of the Mass on the part of the Church offering and on the part of the priest celebrating is certainly finite, for their dignity, in which it is founded, is finite. On the part of Christ, the principal priest offering and the victim, there is no doubt that the value of the Mass, like the value of the sacrifice of the Cross, is truly infinite, since Christ Himself is the host and the one offering now by the ministry of priests. Trent sess. 22, ch. 2. Hence the Mass can cause a fruit always greater intensively, according as someone needs more and is better disposed, and extensively insofar as it can benefit infinite men without anything being detracted from individuals, whether it is applied for only one, or for several and all.

There is dispute about this actually received fruit, how much someone really receives. But the question is not about the fruit of impetration on the part of the Church and the offerers. As regards this fruit, it is clear that it always comes to all, although there are several offerers. Nor likewise is the question about the fruit ex opere operato, by force of the sacrifice of the Mass itself, but general, coming to all the faithful; for since the Mass is the sacrifice of the Church, the fruit of this sacrifice comes to all the faithful, and therefore in this way that general fruit is extensively indefinite; and likewise intensively it also is indefinite, insofar as greater fruit comes to those who are more joined with the priest celebrating. But the question concerns the special fruit coming ex opere operato to those to whom the Mass is applied, or for whom the sacrifice of the Mass is offered. It concerns the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit which comes to men. For the latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit with respect to God, by reason of Christ the priest and victim, is actually infinite, and fully satisfies the adoration, thanksgiving, and propitiation and satisfaction owed to God.

The first opinion, more probable to St. Alphonsus, holds that this fruit is infinite, or rather indefinite, or to be received indefinitely, both intensively insofar as less or more is really received, according to the measure of the disposition of the man, and extensively, insofar as it really benefits one as much as several. Wherefore, if this fruit, afterward actually received, is always finite, this certainly is not because from divine institution only so much fruit and no greater is to be received, but it is only from the finite capacity of the men for whom it is offered, each of whom receives richer fruit according to his own disposition and that of the offerer; yet the Mass always benefits individuals equally when applied to several as if it were applied to one. The reason for this opinion is that the eucharistic sacrifice does not differ from the sacrifice of the Cross except only by the different manner of offering. Therefore, as the sacrifice of the Cross works after the manner of a universal supernatural cause according to the capacity of the subjects, so also the eucharistic sacrifice. The abundant redemption of Christ is thus applied, with no limit placed except that which arises from the finite capacity of men. And for this opinion St. Alphonsus affirms that St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5, clearly stands.

The second opinion, which the same St. Alphonsus calls probable, holds that the fruit actually to be received is finite from the very institution of this sacrifice, because namely a certain and individual degree was determined by Christ in each sacrifice, and therefore the more it is distributed among several, the less comes to each. The reason for this opinion is taken from the usage and sense of the Church, while Masses for one and the same person and thing are repeated and multiplied, which is a sign that it does not have an indefinite effect, but a certain and limited one from the will of Christ. And Christ so established it, that He might compel men to offer the sacrifice continually. If it were otherwise, the special application itself of the fruit of the Mass would be useless, and the usefulness of the Church herself would require that all Masses always be celebrated for all the faithful, living and dead. But the reason of the sacrifice of the Cross, by which the whole price of Redemption was paid, is one thing; the reason of the eucharistic sacrifice, by which the application of that price is had, is another. And St. Thomas 4, dist. 45, q. 2, a. 4, q. 2 ad 2 seems to favor this opinion. But this does not prevent the fruit which comes to the faithful insofar as they are offerers from being extensively indefinite, because a proper corresponding fruit belongs to each oblation. The same must be said of the fruit which comes to all the faithful, insofar as the sacrifice of the Mass is offered by the Church for all, because whether they are more or fewer, the Church's sacrifice is always offered for the whole Church, for all Christian faithful, living and dead, indeed even for the salvation of the whole world. Thus the Offertory of the Mass. - Suarez disp. 79, sects. 11, 12; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 5, c. 8, n. 6; c. 9, n. 4.

613 bis. Note: The fruit of expiation, or remission of punishment, in relation to the dead is infallible, because they oppose no obstacle to it; but in relation to the living it is not always infallible in act and effect, because the state of grace and the remission of sins, which is necessarily presupposed to the remission of punishment, is not always in them. But the fruit of propitiation, or remission of sins, likewise is not always infallible in act and effect; for actual help for justification is indeed conferred, and thus indeed the fruit of the sacrifice is infallibly had, but man does not always cooperate with it; and, with attention to his unworthiness, there would be need of several and greater helps, for obtaining which the sacrifice of the Mass would have to be repeated several times. Likewise the fruit of impetration of other graces is not always infallible, because those graces are not always expedient for the glory of God and eternal salvation, to which the sacrifice offered to God is ordered.

Is application of the Mass necessary for receiving the fruit of the sacrifice? - Application 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. - Now the application of the priest is not required that part of the general fruit be received; but it suffices that he wish to celebrate according to the mind of the Church, for such application is always implicitly included in the general intention of the celebrant. And it is expressly contained in several places of the whole Mass. Likewise, 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 applied to him per se. Indeed there are some who think this fruit so proper to him that it cannot be applied to another. L. 318. - But the application of the priest is required so 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 offers the sacrifice for others in the person of Christ, so also he alone applies the fruit of the same sacrifice.

• A priest, although he has promised to celebrate Mass for no one, must make some application of the special fruit of the sacrifice. The reason is: 1. because in his ordination he received from Christ's institution the power of confecting the sacrifice, and consequently of applying its fruit, as is clear from the very words of ordination: "Receive the power of offering sacrifice both for the living and for the dead." But that power would remain useless if the priest did not use it. 2. If no application is made, there is no reason why it should benefit one more than another; therefore the unapplied fruit remains in the general treasury of the Church, and consequently becomes less useful. "If it is applied to no one, or to one incapable, the fruit remains in the treasury of the Church, as Suarez teaches, or it yields to the priest himself, or to those for whom he is bound specially to offer, because he is judged implicitly to have intended this," Busembaum cited by St. Alphonsus 336, or to those for whom in the name of the Church he generally offers the sacrifice in the offertory. - Suarez disp. 78, sect. 5; Lugo disp. 9, sect. 10; E. M.

Second intention: In the application of the Mass there is a certain conditioned intention, so that if perhaps the Mass cannot be applied to him for whom it is celebrated by the primary intention, for satisfying one's own obligation, another application may be substituted for this application. Moreover it also has this force, that, if perhaps the opinion about the intensively infinite fruit of the Mass is true, the Mass is applied also according to this second intention. Finally, the second intention has the force of a certain special Memento. 613.

In the application of Masses, is it licit to divide the fruits of the sacrifice and apply them for various ends and persons? - Resp. In the negative, if someone, by obligation from justice, must apply a Mass for another. For that person is always judged to ask for himself the whole fruit of the sacrifice. Nor is it certainly clear that the sacred rite offered for several benefits each as much as when applied for one alone. Wherefore one cannot receive a double or triple stipend for one and the same Mass.

And this is clear also from props. 8 and 10 condemned by Alexander VII. - But as regards Masses altogether free, namely those which the celebrant is bound to apply for no one, or those which he is bound to apply from fidelity alone and a liberal promise, or from obedience alone, or by command of a superior or statute of an order, it is per se licit to divide the fruits, namely latreutic, eucharistic, propitiatory, impetratory, satisfactory. The reason in the first case is that the Mass has all these fruits, and the celebrant has the power of applying the fruits of the sacrifice, which, since they tend to different ends, can be applied for those various ends. The reason in the second case is that every liberal promise is always understood as least burdensome to the one promising. Hence one who is bound by only a gratuitous promise and by no title of justice can also apply one and the same sacrifice for several, according to the opinion concerning the indefinite application of the fruit of the sacrifice of the Mass. The reason in the third case is that every obligation of law or precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Hence, if, e.g., a superior commands Mass for others rather than for the dead, the application for freeing a soul remains free to the priest, as St. Francis Borgia, Superior General of the Society of Jesus, declared for his subjects in 1654. Wherefore, if Mass had to be celebrated in thanksgiving, the application of the impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory fruit remains free. - E. M.

Is there an obligation of applying Mass for another? - Resp. In the affirmative; for it is had 1. from the law itself, for bishops, pastors, chapters of cathedral or collegiate churches; 2. from the will of testators, for beneficed persons, chaplains, heirs, legatees, etc.; 3. from a pact, when a stipend has been accepted, or from a gratuitous promise. And these Masses are customarily called manual, so that they may be distinguished from other founded Masses, owed from foundation. L. 314-317. But it is not simoniacal to accept a stipend for Mass; for "the priest does not accept money as the price of the consecration of the Eucharist... for this would be simoniacal, but as a stipend of his support." St. Thomas 2.2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 2. Nonetheless even rich priests can accept a stipend, "both because today it is permitted by the custom of the universal Church, and because every workman, whether rich or poor, is worthy of his wage." L. 317. And St. Thomas favors this, Quodl. 6, a. 10. - E. M.

622 bis. Note: On the feasts suppressed by the very recent Motu Proprio, which is immediately in force, namely Corpus Christi, Purification, Annunciation, and Nativity of the B. V. Mary, St. Joseph Spouse of the same B. V. Mary, St. John Apostle and Evangelist, and the Patron of each place or diocese, the obligation remains of offering the sacred rite for the people. S. C. C., Aug. 8, 1911. - During the present condition of affairs, in France, pastors are altogether bound to continue worship in their church and to remain in the parochial buildings until they are violently expelled. - For supplying pious legacies abolished in France, it has been established perpetually that every year, on one of the Sundays of the month of November, in all the churches of France, a Requiem Mass be celebrated for the aforesaid end.

Is a priest guilty of simony who celebrates chiefly by reason of the accepted stipend? - Resp. In the negative per se, namely if he does not hold the stipend as the price of the sacrifice of the Mass and has accepted it only as a stipend for support. - But he cannot be excused from sin, since it is most odious and shameful that someone abuse the sacred ministry for the sake of gaining money. Yet a priest does not sin who celebrates accessorily in view of the remuneration to be received, especially if it is necessary for him. Nor per se is he stained by any blemish who, with a stipend accepted, is determined to celebrating, although otherwise he would have omitted the sacred rite; for then he is moved not by reason of the stipend, but by the obligation to be fulfilled. Cf. vol. 1, nn. 511, 512; E. M.

Is it licit to collect stipends of Masses so that the Masses to be celebrated are then handed over to others? - Resp. If this is done for the sake of profit, it is forbidden, especially to merchants and booksellers, so that every occasion, appearance, and suspicion of base profit may be removed from the holiness of so great a sacrifice, although the collectors afterward take care that they are celebrated by poor priests, with books, religious and pious newspapers, etc., being given in place of the stipend, or spend for pious uses the profit which is taken from the exchange of books or merchandise with alms. If this is not done for the sake of profit, the matter per se is often dangerous, because often Masses of this kind must be celebrated at the established time, place, etc. Hence collectors sin gravely, and those also who confer stipends on them or accept them from them, as accomplices. Moreover, collectors are guilty of theft if they subtract anything for themselves beyond the just price of the office and labor. But this collection is explicitly and simply prohibited by the following Decrees of the S. C. C., not only because of gain and profit to be made, but also because of any other end whatever, although the best, unless it is that someone celebrate Masses, either through himself or through his subjects. Benedict XIV, Const. Quanta cura; S. C. C., Sept. 9, 1874; Apr. 24, 1875; L. 332; E. M.

Decree of the S. C. C., May 11, 1904. "That the celebration of manual Masses may be fulfilled with due solicitude, and that dispersions of alms and forgetfulness of assumed obligations may be avoided, the Congregation of the Sacred Council has established many things even in most recent times. But amid so great a mobility of affairs and fortunes in our age and with the growing malice of men, experience has taught that even greater precautions must be applied, so that the pious wills of the faithful may not be defrauded and a matter most grave among all may be carefully and holily guarded. For this reason the Eminent Fathers of the S. Congregation, after counsel had been taken more than once, judged that some things must be established, which our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X carefully weighed, approved, and ordered to be published, as follows. "In the first place the Sacred Congregation declares that by manual Masses in the present Decree are understood and held all those which the faithful, with a manual offering made, ask to be celebrated, to whomever or in whatever way they hand over this offering, whether directly or in testaments, provided they do not constitute a perpetual foundation, or one such and so long-lasting that it must be regarded as perpetual. "Likewise counted among manual Masses are those which indeed burden the patrimony of some private family perpetually, but are established in no church, which Masses can be satisfied anywhere by any priests, at the discretion of the head of the family. "But after the manner of manual Masses are those which, established in some church or annexed to benefices, cannot for this or that reason be applied by the proper beneficed person or in the proper church; and therefore either by law, or with an indult of the Holy See, they must be handed over to other priests so that satisfaction may be made for them. "Now concerning all these, the S. Congregation decrees: "1. That no one can seek and accept more Masses than he can probably celebrate within the limits of time established below, and through himself, or through priests subject to him, if it concerns a diocesan Ordinary or a regular Prelate. "2. That the useful time for fulfilling obligations of manual Masses is one month for one Mass, six months for one hundred Masses, and another longer or shorter space of time, more or less, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses. "3. That it is licit for no one to assume so many Masses that he probably cannot satisfy them himself within one year from the day of the obligation undertaken, always preserving nevertheless the contrary will of the offerers, who either explicitly or implicitly, because of some urgent cause, request a shorter time for the celebration of Masses, or grant a longer time, or spontaneously assign a greater number of Masses. "4. Since in the Decree Vigilanti of May 25, 1893, it was established 'that in the future all and each everywhere, beneficed persons and administrators of pious causes, or those in any way obliged to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, at the end of each year should hand over to their own Ordinaries the burdens of Masses which remain and for which they have not yet satisfied, according to the manner to be defined by them'; to remove ambiguities, the Eminent Fathers declare and establish that the time fixed by these words is to be taken in such a way that for founded Masses or those annexed to some benefice, the obligation of depositing them runs from the end of that year within which the burdens should have been fulfilled; but for manual Masses the obligation of depositing them begins after one year from the day of the burden undertaken, if it concerns a great number of Masses, or otherwise according to the diverse will of the offerers. "But concerning the entire and perfect observance of the prescriptions which have been established both in this article and in the preceding ones, the conscience of all whom it concerns is gravely burdened. "5. Those who have an overflowing number of Masses, concerning which they may freely dispose, without detriment to the will of founders or offerers as regards the time and place of the celebration of Masses, can assign them, besides to their own Ordinary or the Holy See, also to priests well-disposed toward them, provided they are certainly and personally known to them and beyond every exception. "6. Those who have handed over Masses with their alms to their own Ordinary or to the Holy See are relieved from every obligation before God and the Church. "But those who have handed over to others to be celebrated Masses accepted from the faithful, or in any way entrusted to their good faith, are held by the obligation until they have obtained proof of the completed celebration; so that if, from the dispersal of the alms, from the death of the priest, or from any other cause whatever, even accidental, the matter has fallen void, the one committing them must supply from his own goods and is bound to satisfy the Masses. "7. Diocesan Ordinaries, the Masses which by the disposition of the preceding articles they shall gather together, will immediately enter in order in a book with the respective alms, and will take care according to their strength that they be celebrated as soon as possible, yet so that first satisfaction be made for manual Masses, then for those which are after the manner of manual Masses. But in the distribution they will observe the rule of the Decree Vigilanti, namely: 'they will distribute the intentions of Masses first among priests subject to themselves whom they have known to need them; then they will commit others either to the Holy See or to other Ordinaries, or also, if they wish, to priests outside the diocese, provided they are known to them and beyond every exception,' the rule of article 6 concerning the obligation always remaining firm, until they have exacted from the priests proof of the completed celebration. "8. It is altogether forbidden to anyone to hand over to booksellers and merchants, to administrators of daily papers and periodicals, even if they are religious men, and also to sellers of sacred utensils and vestments, although they are pious and religious institutes, and generally to any persons whatever, even ecclesiastics, who seek Masses not specifically so that they may celebrate them either through themselves or through priests subject to them, but for any other end whatever, although the best, the obligations of Masses and their alms accepted from the faithful or from pious places. For it has been established that this cannot be done except by carrying on some kind of commerce with the alms of Masses, or by diminishing the alms themselves; and the S. Congregation judged that both must altogether be guarded against. Wherefore in the future, whoever shall presume to violate this law, either by knowingly handing over Masses as above or by accepting them, besides the grave sin which he will commit, will incur the penalties established below. "9. According to those things which have been established in the preceding article, it is decreed that, for manual Masses, the offering assigned by the faithful, and for founded Masses or Masses annexed to some benefice, which are celebrated after the manner of manual Masses, the proper alms according to the following articles, can never be separated from the celebration of Mass, nor changed into other things or diminished, but must be handed over to the celebrant whole and in its own species, declarations, indults, privileges, rescripts, whether perpetual or for a time, granted anywhere, under whatever title, form, or by whatever authority, and contrary to this law, being removed. "10. And therefore to sell or buy books, sacred utensils, or any other things, and to enter associations, as they call them, with daily papers and periodicals by means of Masses, is wicked and altogether prohibited. But this holds not only if it concerns Masses to be celebrated, but also if it concerns Masses already celebrated, whenever this turns into usage and habit and inclines to the support of some commerce. "11. Likewise, without a new and special permission of the Holy See, which will not be given unless true necessity has first been established and with due and opportune cautions, it is not licit to subtract anything from the alms of Masses which the faithful are accustomed to hand over to more celebrated Sanctuaries, so that provision may be made for their dignity and ornament. "12. But whoever shall have dared in any way or under any pretext to break the statutes in the preceding articles 8, 9, 10, and 11, if he is of the priestly order, will be subject to suspension a divinis, reserved to the Holy See and incurred by the fact itself; if he is a cleric not yet initiated to the priesthood, he will likewise be subject to suspension from the orders received, and moreover will become incapable of obtaining higher orders; but if he is a layman, he will be bound by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Bishop. "13. And since in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis it was established that those are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff who 'collect alms of a greater price and seek profit from them by causing Masses to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of a lesser price,' the S. Congregation declares that nothing is detracted from this law and sanction by the present Decree. "14. Nevertheless, lest a sudden innovation be harmful to some pious causes and religious publications, it is granted that associations already entered into by means of Masses may be prolonged until the end of the year from which they were instituted. Likewise it is conceded that indults of reduction of the alms of Masses, which are found to have been granted to some in benefit of Sanctuaries or other pious causes, may remain in force until the end of the current year. "15. Finally, as regards Masses annexed to benefices, whenever they are handed over to other priests to be celebrated, the Eminent Fathers declare and establish that the alms must be no other than the synodal alms of the place in which the benefices were erected. "But for Masses founded in parishes and other churches, the alms which is assigned must be no other than that which in the foundation or in the subsequent indult of reduction is found to have been taxed perpetually, always preserving nevertheless rights, if there are any, legitimately recognized, whether for the fabric of churches or for their rectors, according to the Declarations presented by the S. Congregation in the Munich case of July 25, 1874, and in the Hildesheim case of January 21, 1898. "For in the Munich case, 'with attention to the fact that the alms of Masses of certain legacies partly hold the place of a parochial support, the Eminent Fathers judged it licit for the pastor, if he cannot satisfy them through himself, to commit those Masses to another priest, with the ordinary alms of the place assigned, whether for low or sung Masses.' And in the Hildesheim case it was declared that 'in legacies of Masses founded in some church, one can retain in favor of ministers and of those serving the churches that portion of revenues which at the beginning of the foundation, or in another legitimate way, was assigned to them independently of the special work to be performed for the fulfillment of the legacy.' "Finally, it will be the duty of each Ordinary to take care that in individual churches, besides the table of perpetual burdens and the book in which manual Masses handed over by the faithful are recorded in order with their alms, there also be books in which satisfaction for the said burdens and Masses is marked. "It will likewise be their duty to watch over the full and complete execution of the present Decree, which His Holiness orders to be observed inviolably by all, anything contrary notwithstanding."

An exchange of the alms of Mass with food and service is licit, provided that no more is retained than an honest compensation demands. S. C. C., Feb. 25, 1905; A. S. S. vol. 38, p. 20.

627 bis. Is transmission of Masses outside the diocese licit? - The following Decrees are held on this matter.

On the Satisfaction of Masses. - "In the recent Decree Ut debita of May 11, 1904, this S. Congregation, embracing various laws already issued before concerning the religious fulfillment of burdens of Masses, with opportune declarations added and a severe sanction interposed, strove to provide that the holiest matter of all be held in highest honor among all, and that the danger be removed lest anyone in any way detract anything from the pious wills of the faithful. Yet although these were the cares of the Apostolic See and the solicitude of the Bishops, abuses and violations of the law were not lacking, concerning which the same Sacred Congregation judged that the vigilance of Prelates should again be stirred up. "For indeed it is clear that not a few, notwithstanding the very well-known canonical prescriptions, by no means doubted to subtract something on their own initiative from the offering accepted for Masses, and, having retained for themselves part of the money, to commit the Masses themselves to others to be celebrated, perhaps led by the opinion that this was licit for them either because of the consent of the priest receiving with a more or less even mind, or because of the end of helping some pious work or exercising charity. "There were also those who, contrary to laws so often inculcated, especially contrary to n. 3 of the same Decree, adopted this kind of industry for themselves, that they gathered from everywhere the greatest number of Masses they could. From this it has more than once happened that an enormous abundance of them was heaped up in the hands of private men; and therefore it remained subject to danger, which indeed, even when human malice has been removed, always threatens matters entrusted to private faith. "Finally there were found those who, departing from the law expressed in n. 5 of the Decree, committed Masses to be celebrated, not only more abundantly than was licit to give to private persons, but also more inconsiderately, since they entrusted them to priests unknown to them, deceived by the appearance of some name or title, or moved by the recommendations of others who neither knew them plainly nor had sufficiently examined the gravity of the burden assumed. "That these disturbances of discipline may be met, and that the most grave harms which customarily follow the violation of the Decree Ut debita may be repelled as far as possible, this S. Congregation, carrying out the commands of our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, admonishes all Bishops and other Ordinaries to apply every care and vigilance in a matter of such importance, and to teach the clergy and administrators of pious legacies what dangers arise from the non-observance and contempt of the law; with what burden their conscience is weighed down; how rashly they place their own judgment before the laws which long experience of affairs has placed for the protection of the most august matter; finally, by what fault they bind themselves and to what penalties they become subject. "But for rooting out the evil radically, the Eminent Fathers further judged it necessary to add certain new things to the prescriptions hitherto made. Therefore, the matter having been discussed first in the Congregation of March 23, 1907, and again in the following Congregation of April 27, they established these things to be observed by all under a grave bond of conscience: "I. That in the future whoever wishes to commit Masses to be celebrated to priests, whether secular or regular, residing outside the diocese, must do this through their Ordinary, or at least after he has been heard and has assented. "II. That each Ordinary, as soon as it is permitted, make a catalogue of his own priests, and describe the number of Masses which each one is bound to satisfy, so that afterward he may proceed more safely in assigning Masses. "III. Finally, if any Bishops or priests should wish in the future to send Masses, of which there is an overflowing abundance, to Prelates or priests of churches which are situated in the East, they must always and in each individual case do this through the S. Congregation of Propaganda Fide. "All these things having been reported by the undersigned Secretary to the same Most Holy Lord in the audience of April 28, His Holiness held ratified and confirmed the deliberations of the Eminent Fathers and ordered them to be published, anything contrary notwithstanding. "Given at Rome on the 22nd day of May 1907." Letter of the S. C. C.

On the Transmission of Masses to the Eastern Churches. - "... III. Finally, if any Bishops or priests should wish in the future to send Masses, of which there is an overflowing abundance, to Prelates or priests of churches which are situated in the East, they must always and in each individual case do this through the S. Congregation of Propaganda Fide." S. C. C., Decree Recenti, May 22, 1907. "Apostolic Delegates are not comprehended in the preceding article 3 of the Decree Recenti of May 22, 1907, so that Mass intentions can be sent to the aforesaid Reverend Delegates with the respective alms, that they may distribute them only to Prelates and priests of their Delegation. Superiors of Orders and Religious Institutes can directly and specifically send Mass intentions with the respective alms to their own religious subjects, but not to the rest." S. C. C., May 22, 1907.

Alms of Masses to be celebrated by missionaries in Eastern regions, and everywhere, must be sent, as before, to the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, or also to Apostolic Delegates, who can hand them over only to their own prelates and priests; likewise to the Moderators of religious institutes, who will be able to send them on to their subjects, but not to others. S. C. C., Sept. 9, 1907. "1. If any wish to send Masses, of which there is an overflowing abundance, to Churches of the Eastern rites, they can do this not only through this S. Congregation, as is prescribed in the Decree Recenti of the S. C. C., May 22, 1907, but also through the Reverend Apostolic Delegates established in Eastern regions. In that case it is necessary to signify to them how many Masses and what sum of stipends must be handed over to Eastern Prelates existing within the scope of each Delegation. "2. It is in no way licit to send alms to laymen, who afterward distribute them to priests who will celebrate Masses. "3. Nor is it licit to commit the celebration of Masses directly to Eastern presbyters. "4. It is also forbidden to send alms directly to Superiors of Eastern Religious Congregations. "5. Indeed neither is it licit to commit Masses directly to Eastern Prelates who are either titular Bishops or simple Patriarchal Vicars. "6. But if it concerns Prelates having ordinary episcopal jurisdiction in the East, Mass intentions with the relative alms can be sent directly by Bishops and Priests to those Prelates themselves for the necessities only of priests subject to them, as the S. C. C. declared on March 18, 1908. But lest from several places at the same time many alms flow together into one and the same Diocese, which would bring with it an excessive delay in the celebration of Masses, therefore one who commits alms to some Eastern Prelate should also make the Apostolic Delegate of the region certain of the number of Masses, to whom it belongs to watch that the Masses be celebrated with the solicitude which is fitting." Instruction Cum plures, S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 15, 1908; Monit. Eccles. vol. 20, p. 439.

Can priests of the Society of Jesus accept a stipend of Masses? - A priest of the Society can accept a stipend neither for himself nor for another for Masses which he reads. The same also must be asserted if it concerns any other sacred ministries whatever. This is clear from the Institute of the Society, Epitome Inst. Soc. Iesu, p. 2, c. 1, sect. 6, n. 27; p. 4, c. 2, sect. 1, n. 30. - If money is offered for Masses to a priest of the Society or to the Community, it can be admitted by the superior, not indeed with a rigorous obligation, but with a broad promise of saying some Masses, or even one or another each year from gratitude.

Likewise money can be accepted liberally, and in turn Masses can liberally be promised, yet so that the later promise is not as it were a compensation, or reciprocal payment as if for stipends, but the money is admitted under the mere title of alms; so that the offerer plainly understands that it cannot be accepted under another name, and that he himself gives it on this same basis. La Croix l. 4, n. 136 seqq.; l. 6, p. 2, n. 146; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 4, disp. 30.

On what days and at what hour is it licit to celebrate? - On Thursday of Holy Week and Holy Saturday only the solemn Mass is permitted to be celebrated in churches in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved. On Holy Saturday it is to be celebrated in parish churches because of the blessing of the font, where it exists. Decree of Clement XI, Mar. 15, 1712; S. R. C., Dec. 19, 1654, n. 980; Feb. 12, 1690, n. 1822; June 14, 1659, n. 1120; Sept. 4, 1875, n. 3366; Benedict XIV, Note 38; L. 350. Nevertheless, where the custom is in force that the pastor celebrate on these days, it is to be tolerated. And thus according to the Ambrosian Rite a low Mass by only one priest is permitted. S. R. C., July 18, 1902. - Moreover, in rural parishes in which three or at least four clerics cannot be had for carrying out the sacred functions on Friday and Holy Saturday, with lesser solemnity, according to the small Ritual of Benedict XIII, S. R. C., July 28, 1821, n. 2616, pastors, with the license of the Bishop, which in many places is not sought, to be obtained each year, can celebrate low Mass on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, before the Conventual Mass begins in the Cathedral or Mother church. Likewise it is licit on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord for Cardinals, cf. vol. 1, n. 260 bis, 3, and also for the Superior of Regulars, properly so called, to celebrate in a private oratory, and, if an oratory is lacking, in the church, with doors closed, in order to minister Communion to the religious. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1839, n. 2799; Dec. 9, 1899, n. 4049. And if on that day there falls a feast of precept of St. Joseph, or of the Virgin greeted by the Angel, or of the principal Patron, it is licit to celebrate as many Masses as will be necessary by the command and judgment of the Bishop; but the ancient custom of Communion of the clergy in the solemn Mass must not be omitted. S. R. C., Sept. 12, 1716, n. 2240; Sept. 23, 1897, ad 1, n. 2769; Sept. 26, 1868, n. 3179. But on Friday of Holy Week it is altogether prohibited under grave sin to celebrate. But in all churches in which on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord the customary function was had, the Mass of the Presanctified must be celebrated, which is not a true Mass, but only the Communion of the priest. S. R. C., Dec. 9, 1899, n. 4049. - With these days excepted, it is permitted to celebrate daily. - Decree of Clement XI, Mar. 15, 1712; S. R. C., Sept. 13, 1692, n. 1883; Jan. 10, 1693, ad 6, n. 1890; Mar. 9, 1877, n. 3414; L. 349, 350.

By decree of the S. R. C., Dec. 10, 1703, it was established that all the functions of Holy Week are not rights merely parochial. S. C. de Prop. Fide, Aug. 10, 1841, Collect. vol. 1, n. 936.

The Memoriale Rituum of Benedict XIII is to be used in the more solemn functions throughout the year by pastors in smaller Parishes in which clergy are not present. According to this Memoriale, the functions of Holy Week and other similar functions cannot be performed in smaller non-parochial churches and oratories of Regulars and Nuns without faculty of the Holy See. By special indult it can be used in non-parochial churches in which the conditions of small churches are verified, in Latin America and the Philippine Islands.

Holy Week: The sacred functions proper to this week are not exclusively parochial, and therefore can be permitted by Bishops in churches in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved. S. R. C., Jan. 12, 1704, ad 7, n. 2123; May 9, 1884, ad 1, n. 3608.

In the Supper of the Lord, there is an obligation of celebrating Mass in Cathedral Churches, and all Canons are bound to receive Communion from the hand of the Bishop; and all of the clergy serving the pontifical Mass are bound to receive sacred Communion from the hand of the celebrant.

Holy Saturday: Private Masses are prohibited on this day. Sacred Communion can be distributed to the faithful on this day during the solemnities of Masses and after them.

Private Mass can be said at any hour from dawn until noon. Rubrics of the Missal, de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1. Dawn is to be computed according to the variety of times. "But all agree that there is no fault in finishing Masses at dawn, and beginning them a little before noon; the reason is that the time both of dawn and of noon is not to be taken mathematically, but morally." L. 341. In the same way, the privilege of celebrating one hour before dawn or after noon must be understood of one hour before or after the time assigned for others not privileged; otherwise the privilege would be of little advantage. L. 346. - Where dawn is very late, or appears very early, a legitimate custom can be observed; and where it does not appear, it is licit to celebrate Mass from the beginning of civil and usual life. S. R. C., Sept. 18, 1634, n. 614; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 2; E. M.; Council of Trent sess. 22, Decree de observ. et evit.; Benedict XIV, Inst. 13, 63.

At what hour the conventual and solemn Mass is to be celebrated, see in the General Rubrics of the Missal, tit. 15. Cf. here n. 225.

Whether and under what conditions is it licit to celebrate Mass more than once in a day? - Outside the case of true necessity, it is not licit to repeat Mass. Except the day of the Nativity of the Lord, and, where the privilege has been granted, namely in Spain, Portugal, Latin America, the Philippine Islands, the Antilles, and the other islands of the Caribbean Sea, the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed. And regulars can accept three stipends, seculars only two, in Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca; only one in the remaining places. C. Consuluisti 3, de Celebrat. missar. But on the night of the Nativity no one, not even a pastor, is bound to celebrate three Masses, but can omit one at will. L. 351. - There is necessity if a pastor before the ablution is warned about communicating a sick person, and he has already received his host, and no other fasting priest is found, which however is scarcely practical. L. 351. Necessity more practically exists lest many lose the sacred rite on a feast day, e.g., if one pastor governs two distant parishes, if a part of the people cannot gather at the same church because of the distance of places, or at the same Mass because of the narrowness of the church. - This necessity of celebrating two Masses is to be recognized by the Bishop, according to those things which Benedict XIV has in Const. Declarasti nobis, Mar. 16, 1746, de Sacrif. miss., l. 3, cc. 5, 6, and permission is to be given by the Bishop. But what distance is needed, or what number of the faithful, so that Mass can be repeated, is left to the judgment of the Ordinary. And if they are distant by one mile, or there are twenty who otherwise would not satisfy the precept of the Church, he will be able, indeed he must, permit it. S. C. C., July 31, 1851; Jan. 12, 1847. - A pastor is bound to apply the second Mass for the people, just like the first, with no stipend accepted, on feast days in united parishes, except in the case in which the union of parishes is such that one parish altogether arises from it. Wherefore a pastor governing two parishes, and therefore celebrating twice, is bound to apply his Mass to each parish. On the contrary, a pastor celebrating twice in one and the same parish is bound to apply only one Mass for the people. - Never can an alms be received for celebrating the second Mass, even for pious causes, and whoever he may be who celebrates it; nor can the title of poverty or defect of revenues be alleged for receiving this alms. But if he suffers any inconvenience, he is not prohibited from demanding wages for it. S. C. C., Mar. 23, 1861; Feb. 22, 1862. - The celebrant, when he celebrates again, must be fasting; and therefore he does not receive the purification, but puts it into a prepared vessel. S. R. C., Mar. 11, 1828, n. 3068. A priest making Mass in two different churches on the same day can carry with himself the purification of the first Mass in some clean vessel to be carefully kept, so that he may receive it with the purification of the second Mass. S. R. C., May 9, 1893, ad 5, n. 3798. Cf. E. M. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 2 ad 5; Suarez disp. 83, sect. 3; Lugo, Responsa Moralia, l. 1, disp. 10, 12.

Sometimes, but much more rarely and with greater difficulty, faculty is granted for celebrating also a third Mass because of more special reasons of necessity. S. C. C., Dec. 20, 1879; Monit. Ecclesiast. vol. 12, p. 145 seq.

In what place is it licit to celebrate? - Commonly it is not licit to celebrate except in a church, and one consecrated or at least blessed, which is not polluted, execrated, or interdicted; or in an oratory dedicated only to divine worship; and upon an altar not execrated. Under grave sacrilege a consecrated altar, fixed or portable, is required. Trent sess. 22, Decree de Observ., etc.; L. 373. "In a church internally violated, unless it is first reconciled, it will not be licit under grave sin, except in necessity, with permission of the Bishop if he can be approached, otherwise without it, to celebrate or to bury the dead. But necessity is considered sufficient if the people have no other church where they may hear Mass. But if the church is polluted after the Canon has been begun, the priest certainly must continue the Mass." L. 361.

To celebrate Mass in the open air is grave, unless from a graver necessity and with license of the Ordinary, if it can be sought, e.g., if the church has collapsed, or if on a solemn feast it does not contain those who have gathered. C. 11, de Consecr.; Rubrics of the Missal; Lugo disp. 20, n. 48; L. 356.

Without Apostolic indult or privilege it is not licit to celebrate Mass at sea. S. R. C., Mar. 4, 1901, Vicenza. But when this Indult is had, it is necessary that the place where Mass is celebrated present nothing indecent or unbecoming. An Indult of this kind was granted to Cardinals, with due cautions observed. The same Indult was granted to Bishops of America, Oceania, and Australia coming to Rome or returning from Rome. S. R. C., June 30, 1908. But then it is necessary that the sea be calm and that there be no danger of spilling the sacred species from the chalice; and, if another priest is present, vested in surplice, he should assist the Prelate celebrating, and the place should be decent. Likewise to presbyter-chaplains of the Spanish Society of Transatlantic Navigation faculty was granted "of celebrating Mass at sea, with the assistance, however, if it can be done, of another priest vested in surplice, provided the sea is calm and there is no danger of irreverence; power also having been given to those who have assisted at Mass to approach the sacred synaxis... likewise of celebrating and admitting the faithful to sacred Communion, even in fulfillment of the Easter precept, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord."

A Bishop can no longer, as formerly, grant faculty of celebrating in private homes, nor in a private oratory. Trent sess. 22, Decree de Observ. This is also clear from S. C. C., May 27, 1617; Jan. 23, 1847, in which it is said: it is not licit for any Bishop to grant licenses of this kind, not even for a passing act; this faculty is reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone. Yet an exception is made if grave and urgent causes are present, and only by way of a passing act. S. C. C., May 27, 1617; Aug. 27, 1836, Verona, ad 7; July 7, 1850; Dec. 20, 1855; L. 359. But at present this faculty has been enlarged by the following Response of the S. Congregation. "I. Whether and for what causes Ordinaries can permit by way of an act that the most holy Mass be celebrated outside a sacred place, in private homes. - Resp. To I, in the affirmative, from just and reasonable causes, by way of an act, not however in a bedroom, but in a decent place, with the other things to be observed by law being observed, and altogether gratuitously under whatever title." S. C. de Sacram., Dec. 22, 1912; A. A. S. vol. 4, p. 725.

A Bishop can indeed grant faculty of making the sacred rite in public oratories, Trent l. c., and of performing there the other sacred functions which are not strictly parochial. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 3; cf. vol. 1, n. 262; E. M.

The consecration of a church and altar is to be made by the Bishop of the place. Cardinals, however, can consecrate altars in the churches of their title. The consecration of a church consists in anointing with sacred chrism twelve crosses carved or painted on the walls of the Church, with the form of words. Wherefore the consecration adheres to the walls themselves of the Church; hence a church is not execrated if the plaster, intonaco, on which the crosses were painted, is removed from the whole church, or if the roof collapses. A church can be consecrated in reinforced concrete, provided the places of the twelve crosses and the parts of the principal door are of stone. S. R. C., Nov. 12, 1909. In the consecration of a church, the high altar must be consecrated; or, if this is lacking, a lesser or lateral altar can be consecrated. S. R. C., May 24, 1901, n. 4073. The consecration of a church in which the consecration of the altar has been omitted is valid, but not licit. S. R. C., May 19, 1896. But an altar can be consecrated without the church first being consecrated. The fast prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, as regards consecrations of churches, is of strict obligation for the Bishop consecrating and only for those who request that the church be consecrated for them. S. R. C., July 29, 1780; July 3, 1909. Latins cannot celebrate Mass, without a portable altar of stone, in the churches and on the altars of united Greeks, which are from cloth consecrated by the Greek Bishop with anointings and relics.

It is not licit to consecrate a church in whose subterranean part shows, after the manner of a theater, are to be performed for exercising youth; for the church with its subterranean part is consecrated by way of one thing. S. R. C., May 4, 1882, n. 3546, ad 1. Nor indeed is it licit in that subterranean part of the church to keep wines and other merely profane things. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1867, ad 5, n. 3157; 639.

In what oratories can Bishops give license of celebrating? - They can permit that this be done in every religious and pious place. But a religious place is called that in which works of religion, piety, and mercy are exercised, and which has been erected by the authority of the Bishop or of another ecclesiastical Prelate. Such are monasteries, any religious communities, seminaries, etc. But a pious place is called one which is constituted and deputed for works of piety and mercy, even without the authority of a Bishop or ecclesiastical prelate. Hence any hospitals and orphanages must be held as pious places, in which therefore the Bishop can permit the erection of an oratory, even if places of this kind were erected and constituted by civil power. Add also oratories to be erected in prisons. - Indeed the Bishop can permit that Mass be celebrated in these and other similar Oratories, to which by institute the Christian faithful approach for hearing Mass, even in fulfillment of the festal precept, with the master of the place consenting, and the authority of the Ordinary intervening. These Oratories are now called semi-public, so that they may be distinguished from public ones, in which access is open to all, and from private ones, which are constituted in private houses only for the convenience of some person or family. - In these oratories it can be celebrated with closed doors; nor is it necessary that the oratory be separated from other places by four walls, but for the fourth wall there can be arranged a cloth which is opened for the convenience of those hearing Mass. - Trent sess. 22, Decree de Observ., etc.; S. R. C., Mar. 8, 1879, n. 3484; Jan. 23, 1899, n. 4007; Oct. 18, 1901; L. 357; E. M.

Private oratories are neither consecrated nor solemnly blessed, but are blessed only by the simple blessing of a place. S. R. C., June 5, 1899, ad 6, n. 4025. Semi-public oratories can be blessed solemnly or only privately. S. R. C. l. c. ad 5. By a simple blessing they are not deputed perpetually to divine worship, as happens by solemn blessing, but only for the time in which the divine mysteries are celebrated in them. Wherefore afterward those places can be converted to profane uses.

Faculty must be obtained from the Holy See for erecting in pious Communities another oratory besides one principal oratory. S. R. C., Mar. 8, 1879, ad 2, Nevers, n. 3484.

What things are required for celebrating Mass? - These are required: 1. a stone altar, fixed or portable, consecrated by a Bishop; 2. a triple cloth made of linen or hemp; 3. sacred vestments, or vestments blessed by the Ordinary; 4. a chalice and consecrated paten; 5. a corporal of linen or hemp, blessed by the Ordinary; 6. a pall likewise of linen or hemp; 7. a purificator of linen or hemp; 8. a missal with cushion; 9. a crucifix, not merely a cross; 10. two lighted candles of wax; 11. burse, veil, hand towel, glass cruets; 12. a male minister. - As it is grave or light to celebrate without some thing from these, so likewise it is grave or light to celebrate with it not blessed, if however it necessarily must be blessed, although in reality the indecency is less. Nor does it suffice that someone has already celebrated with these things not yet blessed. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1867, n. 3162. - But as regards the candles, under grave sin they must be of wax. In private Masses it is not licit to light more than two wax candles, unless a Bishop celebrates, or unless some extraordinary solemnity, or Mass in place of a solemn or sung Mass, or exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament requires a greater number. Prelates lower than a Bishop cannot use more than two candles on the altar in a private Mass, neither a Canon nor a Vicar General. Collect. S. C. R. Ind. v. Candela. - Rubr. Rit. Serv., etc., tit. 1; de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 3; L. 378-389, 394; Benedict XIV, Const. Imposito nobis, Mar. 29, 1751, § 4; Pius VII, Const. Decet Romanos, IV Non. July 1823; S. R. C., Aug. 7, 1627, n. 441; Mar. 15, 1664, n. 1287; Dec. 14, 1904; E. M.

Priestly vestments, chasubles, stoles, maniples, albs, amices, cinctures, are blessed by the Bishop, or also by Regular Prelates by privilege, but only for their own churches.

The custom of using gold or silver cruets is tolerated. Nor is a small spoon prohibited for pouring water into the chalice. S. R. C., Apr. 28, 1866, n. 3149; Feb. 6, 1858, n. 3064.

643 bis. Wax: It is made by the labor of bees. For candles which must be of wax, it suffices that for the celebration of Mass they be for the greatest part of wax, according to the following Decree of the S. R. C., Dec. 14, 1904, n. 4147. "Bishops should take care according to their strength that the Paschal candle, the candle to be immersed in baptismal water, and the two candles to be lit at Masses be from beeswax at least in greatest part; but the matter of the other candles which are to be placed upon Altars ought to be from the same wax in the greater or a notable quantity. In this matter pastors and other rectors of churches and oratories can safely stand by the norms handed down by their respective Ordinaries; nor are private priests about to celebrate Mass bound anxiously to inquire about the quality of the candles." - Candles of stearin are prohibited for sacred use. S. R. C., nn. 2865, 3376, ad 3.

Bell: It is consecrated with oil of the infirm for the external anointing, and with chrism for the internal anointing, by a solemn blessing made by the Bishop. - Yet there is a threefold blessing of a bell. The solemn blessing which is had in the Roman Pontifical, to be made by the Bishop; another blessing which is had through a new formula, and for a bell for the use of a church or chapel, to be made by the Bishop or by his delegate, S. R. C., Jan. 22, 1908, n. 4211; but the third blessing is for a bell serving for profane use, S. R. C., Mar. 4, 1892, n. 3770; Appendix of the Roman Ritual. - The ringing of bells on Holy Saturday is not among parochial rights, but must be done by the more worthy church. S. R. C., Jan. 12, 1704, n. 2123. - A Bishop cannot prevent Regulars from celebrating Mass and ringing the bell before the parochial Mass.

During the divine offices laymen cannot remain within the presbytery, nor outside together with clerics. Collect. S. R. C. Ind. v. Presbyterium.

Is it licit to celebrate without veil, hand towel, cushion, burse, and must these be blessed? Also without a cross, and must it be blessed? - Resp. To the first. "Busembaum rightly says that these are not blessed.... La Croix says that to celebrate without a veil, when none is had, is not a sin, for veil, hand towel, and cushion, he says, are required only for decency; and he judges the same concerning the burse with Sporer." L. 395. "If something from these is lacking, it can be borrowed from profane things suitably clean, and afterward returned to its previous use." L. 395.

Resp. To the second. Likewise it is light to celebrate without a cross; nor is it of precept that it be blessed. And Pignatelli teaches the same concerning all images to be placed on the altar. It must stand out between the candlesticks, so that it can easily be seen by the celebrant and by others. On an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, the cross can be exposed or not exposed according to the custom of each diocese. Benedict XIV, Const. Accepimus, July 16, 1746; S. C. C., Sept. 17, 1822; S. R. C., Sept. 2, 1741, n. 2365; L. 393. - Yet it is not licit to celebrate Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament publicly exposed without necessity, or grave cause, or special indult. Likewise it is not licit before the Most Holy Sacrament publicly exposed to distribute Communion at the same altar, either within or outside Mass.

S. R. C., May 11, 1878, ad 1, n. 3448; May 18, 1878, ad 3, n. 3449; Feb. 5, 1879, n. 3482; S. R. C., Sept. 4, 1880, ad 4, n. 3524. - E. M.

Is it ever licit to celebrate without a missal? What kind of missal is required? - "Under grave sin there is required a missal containing at least the canon.... But the very common opinion... probably says that sometimes a priest can celebrate without a missal, if he could not easily have one, and if from past experience the moral danger of erring were absent. Hence Lugo and others probably infer that a priest who, because of weakness of sight, recites the Mass from memory celebrates licitly," etc. L. 390. - But one must use his proper missal. Yet if someone celebrates Mass in another church, he can use both the Roman Missal and the missal of the regulars which the church uses, with the rites peculiar to Orders nevertheless excluded. S. R. C., July 9, 1895, n. 3862.

Is it lawful to pronounce everything in a low voice or in a loud voice? - To pronounce in a low voice everything which is to be said secretly, so that one is neither heard by those standing around nor hears himself, contrary to what the Rubric prescribes, is probably not mortal. But this is not excused from venial fault, since in the Rubric it is expressly commanded that the celebrant pronounce in such a way that he hears himself. Nor is he excused from mortal sin who would so utter the words of consecration.

For there can be danger lest that sufficient sensible mode of pronouncing the words be lacking, so that they can be the form of the sacrament. - To recite in a low voice what is prescribed to be recited aloud is not mortal; but it can by no means be excused from venial sin, since the opposite is expressly prescribed in the Rubric. Nevertheless it is not necessary that the whole people hear, but it suffices that the attentive bystanders, namely those who are near the altar, be able to perceive what is read. But those things which by the Rubric are to be read in a clear voice can be read in a less elevated voice, lest other priests celebrating, for example in the same chapel, and others perhaps assisting at Masses there, be disturbed.

He also cannot be excused from venial sin who loudly pronounces in Mass what is to be said in a low voice, since this is against the Rubric, which prescribes that the priest hear himself and not be heard by those standing around. - "I would readily agree that he can sin mortally who would pronounce the words of consecration or a great part of the Canon so loudly that they could be heard at forty paces.... Outside this case I cannot recognize grave sin in this." L. 414-416. - Rubr. Rit. serv., etc.; La-Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 439.

Is it lawful to change anything in Mass? - It is lawful to omit, add, or vary nothing. - To omit something of those things which in Mass are extraordinary and are not always said, such as Iudica me, the Gloria, commemorations, added collects, the Passion, Creed, Sequence, Tract, Preface, special Communicantes, special Hanc igitur, is not grave of itself, unless several things are omitted which make notable matter. To omit those things which are constantly said and are ordinary in Mass is grave of itself, unless lightness of matter excuses. The gravity of the matter is taken here both from quantity and from quality. And thus, as to those things which are contained in the Canon, which immediately touches the sacrifice, a small quantity suffices for grave fault. - Hence it is commonly asserted that it is grave to omit the Confession with the other things at the beginning of Mass, the prayers proper to the Mass, the Epistle, the Gospel, the Preface, the Offertory, ten or eight names of the Saints in the Canon, any prayer in the Canon, the Our Father, Libera nos, the breaking of the host, or its commingling with the Blood, many signs over the offerings, the purification of the paten and chalice after the consumption, etc. - It does not seem grave not to read privately the Gospel and Lesson in a solemn Mass; for they are sung by the deacon and subdeacon. But certainly it is a venial sin, since they are prescribed by the Rubric. - It is venial to omit only one of the three principal prayers, the Kyrie eleison, the Gospel of St. John at the end, one or another sign over the offerings, the striking of the breast, the washing of the fingers in Mass, wine in the purification of the chalice, the washing of the hands before Mass because of reverence for the sacrifice; after Mass it is no sin, as also to omit the prayers to be said according to the priest's opportunity before or after Mass. To omit them while putting on the vestments, according to the common opinion, is venial. For those prayers, as also that one when the priest washes his hands before Mass, are prayers to be said from the Rubric, whereas the prayers before Mass can only be recited according to the priest's opportunity; the same must be said of the prayers after Mass, which are a thanksgiving for the priest's devotion. To mangle words or to introduce syncopation, the sense being preserved and scandal excluded, is venial. It is also venial if the priest omits saying in a low voice in solemn Mass the things which are sung by the choir, since the priest and ministers in a Mass of this kind make one. L. 403-410.

St. Pius V admonishes that only as much wine be used for the purification as at the consecration, and that it be poured through the same part of the chalice through which the Blood was drunk.

To add is more gravely prohibited because of the danger of novelty and because it is expressly prohibited by the Bull of St. Pius V prefixed to the Missal. Wherefore, if something is added which is notable and which is not contained in the Missal, it is grave, even though it is done from devotion. "But if from importunate devotion several collects from the same Missal are added, or the Creed, or Gloria, Our Father, Hail Mary, or something similar, this does not exceed venial fault.... It would be mortal to add the Gloria and Creed in a Mass of Requiem; because this seems a sufficiently grave disorder." L. 411. To add from special devotion and for a just cause a commemoration of some Saint, or a collect for those in tribulation, for asking rain, etc., is not even a light sin; nevertheless it is always better to observe the Rubric, L. 412, "which permits several prayers at the will of the celebrant only in a Mass of a simple feast, or of a feria, or a private votive." S. R. C., July 17, 1895, ad 8, n. 3832.

To vary is grave or light according as a grave or light deformity arises from it in the rite. Wherefore it is grave to read the Gospel before the Epistle, La-Croix 437. But of itself it is light to read one Mass, prayer, epistle, gospel, preface, etc., for another. La-Croix 371; L. 409. - The Mass must agree with the Office, lest the worship of the Saint or Mystery be discordant, except on days on which votive Masses or Masses of the Dead are permitted, and saving the right of Masses of a feria or vigil according to the newest Rubrics, tit. 10, n. 2, or unless it is celebrated in another's church or oratory, whether public or semi-public. S. R. C., Dec. 9, 1895; March 14, 1896; May 23, 1896. - Scandal and contempt being excluded, it is not mortal to celebrate a votive or Requiem Mass on prohibited days. L. 420. - Here it must be noted that Masses of the Dead cannot be said during the Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament for the Forty Hours. L. 418. But when the Most Blessed Sacrament is exposed, even in a double Mass, a commemoration of it can be made. L. 411. - St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 83, aa. 4, 5; L. 418, 419, 421, 423, 424.

Note: privileged octaves are five, namely, the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi. Privileged vigils are three, namely, the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Pentecost. Privileged ferias are seven, namely, Ash Wednesday and all the ferias of Major Week. S. R. C., Sept. 28, 1675, n. 1549.

Mass in another's church. - A celebrant in his own church and in private oratories must use his own Calendar, saving the right of Masses of a feria or vigil according to the newest Rubrics, etc., as has already been said. "All and each priests, both secular and regular, coming to a church or public oratory, are altogether to celebrate Masses, whether of Saints or of Blesseds, even those proper to Regulars, in conformity with the Office of the same church or oratory, whether they are contained in the Roman Missal or in the Missal of Regulars; peculiar rites proper to Orders, however, being excluded," for example, PP. PP., O. S. B. "But if in the said church or oratory an Office of a rite lower than double is being performed, let each of the celebrants be free to perform a Mass of Requiem, or a votive Mass, or even one of the occurring feria; i.e., of a major feria, New Rubrics of the Missal, excepting nevertheless those days on which the aforesaid Masses are prohibited by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal or decrees of the S. R. C." Dec. 9, 1895.

A Mass conforming to the Office of the celebrant, even if it is votive with respect to the Calendar of the church where it is celebrated, "is not votive, nor to be said in the manner of a votive," March 14, 1896; that is, it is celebrated with Gloria in excelsis, etc., according to the Calendar of the celebrant.

In the prayer A cunctis, at the letter N., the Patron or Titular of that church where the celebration takes place is to be named, S. R. C., Sept. 23, 1837, n. 2769; and in a private oratory the Patron of the city or place, S. R. C., Sept. 12, 1840, n. 2814; and regulars can besides name their own holy Founder. S. R. C., Dec. 2, 1891, n. 3578.

On the Calendar to be used by priests in oratories of nuns. - Chaplains and other priests celebrating in the internal oratories of nuns are bound to celebrate Mass conforming to the office of the same oratory, because such oratories are not to be held as merely private. - S. R. C., May 16, 1901, n. 4072.

On priests of the Roman rite with respect to the Ambrosian rite. - I. Priests of the Roman rite celebrating in churches of the Ambrosian rite are to observe the Calendar of the Roman rite of their own diocese, provided that on the more solemn local days, for example, of the Title or Dedication of the Church, the principal Patron of the place, etc., they conform themselves, as to color and Mass, to the Calendar of the church in which they say Mass.

II. The same priests, when celebrating a parochial Mass on some occasion in those same churches, must follow the Ambrosian Calendar and rite.

III. This is also valid for Regulars, who by a grave precept of the Constitutions are bound to the Roman rite. - S. R. C., Jan. 10, 1902, n. 4088.

657 bis. Conventual Mass. - Its obligation has been reduced to one only, apart from those of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and a few others. Constitution of Pius X, Divino afflatu, Rubr. serv., tit. 12, which reads as follows: "In churches in which there is an obligation of choir, only one Mass with the assistance of the choir members is always to be celebrated; and indeed of the Office of the day, unless the Rubrics dispose otherwise. Other Masses, which up to this time were celebrated with the aforesaid assistance, shall in future be read outside choir, after their proper Canonical Hour. Nevertheless there are excepted from this rule Masses in the greater and lesser Litanies, and Masses on the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord. Likewise there are excepted Masses on the anniversaries of the Creation and Coronation of the Supreme Pontiff, of the Election and Consecration or Translation of the Bishop, and also on the anniversary of the last deceased Bishop, and of all Bishops or Canons; and all Masses from foundation." "Although according to the new rubrics, tit. VIII, n. 2, the obligation of reciting in choir the office of the dead has ceased, nevertheless the rubric of the Missal, tit. V, nn. 1 and 2, concerning the Mass to be celebrated for the dead, must still be observed, whether in chant with the presence of the choir members, if it is a question of a conventual Mass, or read outside choir according to the new rubrics tit. XII." S. R. C., June 12, 1912, ad 7.

Moreover in the aforesaid rubric of the Missal these things are contained: "V. On Masses of the Dead. - 1. On the first day of any month (outside Advent, Lent, and Eastertide) not impeded by a double or semi-double office, the principal Mass is said generally for deceased priests, benefactors, and others. But if on that day there is a simple feast or feria which has its own Mass, or the Mass of the preceding Sunday is to be resumed, which was impeded, and within the week no other day occurs on which it can be resumed, then in cathedral and collegiate churches two Masses are said, one for the Dead, the other of the simple feast or the aforesaid feria. But in churches which are not cathedral or collegiate, let the Mass be said with a commemoration generally for the Dead. "2. Furthermore, on Monday of any week in which the office is of the feria, the principal Mass can be said for the Dead. But if there is a proper Mass of the feria or of a simple feast, or the Mass of the preceding Sunday is to be resumed, as above, in the Mass of the day let a commemoration be made, as was said, for the Dead. Lent, however, and the whole Easter season are excepted, and when during the year the office is double or semi-double; during these times the Conventual Mass for the Dead is not said, unless on the day of the burial of the deceased and on the anniversary for the Dead, nor is a commemoration made for them...." "A conventual Mass without chant can be considered as solemn, whether as regards collects, or as regards the prayers at the end of Mass, or as regards the number of candles lit on the altar.... Nevertheless in doubles of the second class the commemoration of a simple is not to be omitted, when by reason of solemnity another Mass is sung." S. R. C., Dec. 7, 1888, n. 3697; March 12, 1836, ad 7, n. 2740; Jan. 19, 1906.

Private Masses of a feria or vigil. - They are permitted on Lenten ferias, Ember Days, the second day of Rogations, and on vigils throughout the year, even on semi-double and double feasts, unless these are of the first or second class, with a commemoration of them. Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 2.

In this Mass of a feria or vigil, however, a third prayer must be added if the office recited was of semi-double rite; otherwise not, if it was of double rite. S. R. C., March 22, 1912, ad 5. "To forestall doubts which may arise over the right interpretation of tit. X, nn. 2 and 5 of the new rubrics.... the Sacred Congregation judged that the following declarations should be published: "1. Whenever on major ferias having their own Mass and on the other days of which tit. X, nn. 2 and 5 of the new rubrics speak, a Mass of the feria is celebrated, provided that it is in fact applied for the dead, the prayer for the dead for whose suffrage it is celebrated can be added, even if in it a commemoration of an occurring lesser or greater double feast must be made. "2. Such prayer for the dead does not in this case exclude prayers of the season, unless a commemoration of a double occurs. "3. When this prayer for the dead is added, attention is not to be paid to whether the number of prayers is odd or not. "4. This same prayer for the dead must always be recited in the penultimate place among the prayers prescribed or permitted that day by the rubrics, not counting collects imposed by the Ordinary. "5. The prayer for the dead for whose suffrage the Mass of the feria is applied can be added, even if on that day the rubrics prescribe the prayer Omnipotens sempiterne Deus for the living and the dead, or Fidelium for all the dead. "6. In order that the indulgence of a privileged altar may be duly and legitimately applied for the dead, it is necessary that on days on which it is permitted by the new rubrics the Mass of the feria be altogether celebrated, with the prayer added as above for the dead for whom the Mass itself is celebrated." S. R. C., June 12, 1912. Cf. the following decree of the Holy Office below.

Mass on Sunday. - In a Mass of Sunday, the color is always of Sunday. The Preface is of the Trinity, or of the Season, or of the octave of a feast of the Lord. Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 4.

When the office of the Second Sunday after Epiphany, according to the norm of the Decree of March 2, 1912, is anticipated on Jan. 16, and there also occurs a day within some octave, a commemoration of this octave must be made in the office of the same anticipated Mass. But the suffrage must not be added at Lauds nor the Prayers at Prime. S. R. C., March 22, 1912, ad 7, 8.

The third prayer of the season, on Sunday, in Mass, is omitted when there occurs a double, or an octave, or a day within an octave, and in Passiontide. Rubr. serv., tit. 7, n. 4; tit. 10, n. 1.

In doubles of the second class which do not have a proper Preface, when they occur on a lesser Sunday and at the same time on the octave day of some feast of the Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the Apostles, the Preface to be used is the one which would be said in the Mass of Sunday. S. R. C., March 22, 1912, ad 6.

The proper Gospel must always be read at the end, when a commemoration has been made of a Sunday, feria, or vigil. Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 3.

Votive Mass. - In votive Masses which do not have a proper Preface, the Preface of the Office of St. Mary on Saturday is to be read, which has a commemoration in the same Masses. S. R. C., April 19, 1912, ad 11.

In votive Masses another Gospel is never read at the end except that of St. John, In principio, according to Rubr., tit. 12. - Cf. General Decree on votive Masses, June 30, 1896, n. 3922.

A private votive Mass can be said of the Most Holy Trinity, of the Holy Spirit, of the Name of Jesus, of the Most Blessed Sacrament, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, of the Cross, of the Passion, of the Most Precious Blood, and not of other Mysteries nor of the Season.

It can besides be said of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by reading one of the five which are contained in the Missal, according to the quality of the time. Likewise the Mass of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of her Immaculate Conception and of the Apparition of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary, can be said. S. R. C., June 25, 1909, ad 11.

Even a private votive Mass can be said of any Saint recorded in the Roman Martyrology; not also of a Blessed, unless an office of him has been granted and, with the office, a special indult for a votive Mass. S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 1922.

At the discretion of the priest it can be read whenever the office is not double and it is not Sunday. But it is prohibited within the octaves of the Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi; throughout the whole Lenten season; on Ember ferias; on the second feria of Rogations; on the days of Rogations, if the procession is made, in parochial churches which have one Mass; on vigils; on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed; on a feria on which the Mass of Sunday is to be anticipated or replaced. - S. R. C., June 21, 1620, n. 1403; Sept. 28, 1675, n. 1549; Aug. 31, 1680, n. 1649; Pius X, Constitution Divino afflatu, Rubr. serv., tit. 10, nn. 2, 5.

A solemn votive Mass for a grave matter, or a public matter of the Church, by appointment of the Ordinary, for example, on account of asking rain, etc., is prohibited on double feasts of the first class, on Sundays of the first class, Ash Wednesday, Major Week, the Vigils of the Nativity and of Pentecost. On these days, unless the identity of the mystery stands in the way, the prayer of the votive Mass is added under one conclusion with the first prayer, even if another commemoration is made. S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 2922.

In these Masses the Gloria and Creed are said, unless they are celebrated in violet color; and on Sunday, even in violet color, the Creed is said. The Preface is proper, or proper to the octave, or of the Season; otherwise the common Preface. Only one prayer is said, and the Last Gospel is that of St. John.

The votive Mass of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which can be celebrated on the first Friday of any month in churches and oratories where in the morning, with the approval of the Ordinary, special exercises of piety are performed in honor of the Most Sacred Heart, has one prayer only, and has the Gloria and Creed, the Alleluia being omitted outside Eastertide at the Introit, Offertory, and Communion.

It is held as solemn; therefore after it the prayers prescribed by Leo XIII for private Masses are omitted. S. R. C., June 28, 1889, n. 2712; May 20, 1890, ad 1, n. 3731; Feb. 19, 1892, ad 3, n. 3769; May 20, 1892, n. 3773; Aug. 30, 1892, ad 1, n. 3792; June 8, 1911.

This Mass, however, is prohibited on feasts of the Lord; on the Vigil of Epiphany; on Friday in Parasceve; within the octaves of Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi; on the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary; on doubles of the first class; on feast days, even suppressed ones, in parochial churches which have even one Mass; on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed. S. R. C., June 28, 1888, n. 3712.

In the exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament for the pious exercise of the Forty Hours, the votive Mass of the Most Blessed Sacrament is said. The Gloria and Creed are said, the Preface is of the Nativity, and every commemoration and collect is omitted. This Mass is regularly sung at the altar on which the Most Blessed Sacrament is to be exposed or is exposed. Within the octave of the Most Holy Body of Christ the Mass is of the same octave, with the sequence and one prayer, without commemorations and collects. - S. R. C., n. 1332, ad 7, 8.

Nevertheless the Mass of the current day is said with commemoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament under one conclusion, all commemorations and collects being omitted, on Sundays of the first and second class, on feasts of the first and second class, Ash Wednesday, the triduum of Major Week, all days of the octave of Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, the Vigils of the Nativity and Pentecost, and a proper privileged octave. - But the commemoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament must be omitted if the feast of the first or second class, or the proper privileged octave, is of the Passion, of the Cross, of the Most Holy Redeemer, of the Most Precious Blood, of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. - If some feast of the first or second class occurs on Sunday, then in the second place the commemoration of Sunday is made and its Gospel is said at the end.

The votive Mass for peace, to be sung for the second day during the time of the Forty Hours Prayer, must be celebrated, insofar as it can be, according to the Clementine Instruction, at an altar on which the Most Blessed Sacrament is not reserved. Nevertheless outside Rome it can be supplied by another votive Mass from those contained in the Missal, at the judgment of the Bishop. S. R. C., May 9, 1857, ad 4, n. 3049.

The aforesaid Mass for peace is without Gloria and without Creed, with the prayer of the Most Blessed Sacrament under one conclusion. The Preface is common, or of the season, and at the elevation the little bell is not rung. On Sundays the commemoration of Sunday is added under one conclusion, and the Creed is said, and the Preface of the Trinity is said, unless another is to be said of the season. On excepted days, just mentioned in the paragraph "Nevertheless the Mass," the Mass is as above, with the prayer for Peace under one conclusion, the prayer of the Most Blessed Sacrament being omitted. Within the octave of the Most Holy Body of Christ the Mass is said as above in the paragraph "In the exposition," with the prayer for peace added under one conclusion.

Private Masses during the exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament are said of the feast or of another current office, with the prayer of the Most Blessed Sacrament after the others prescribed by the Rubric; this, however, is omitted in doubles of the first and second class. S. R. C., Dec. 2, 1684, ad 4, n. 1744. In these Masses the little bell is not rung at the elevation. But the priest, passing before the Most Blessed Sacrament publicly exposed, first genuflects and then uncovers his head, adores, covers his head, and rises.

Votive Mass for spouses. - In it the Gloria and Creed are omitted, at the end Benedicamus Domino is said, and the Gospel of St. John; and three prayers are said. If it is celebrated on a double feast, only commemorations are made, and the third prayer of the season is omitted. S. R. C., May 1912.

On impeded days the Mass of the day is read with the commemoration for the spouses after the prescribed prayers; and after the Our Father and before the Blessing the proper prayers of the aforesaid Mass are recited.

When nuptials have been celebrated in a prohibited time and the spouses afterward seek the nuptial blessing, one need not wait for a day on which the votive Mass for spouses can be said; rather the nuptial blessing can be imparted within Mass, for example of a double feast of the second class, with the commemoration for the spouses. S. R. C., May 27, 1911.

The aforesaid Mass is prohibited on Sundays and double feasts of the first and second class, on feast days of precept, the Vigil of Pentecost, the whole octave of Pentecost, the whole octave of Epiphany, the whole octave of Corpus Christi, and other days excluding doubles of the second class, the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, and on Rogation days, if the Procession is made, in parochial churches which have only one Mass. S. R. C., July 28, 1911.

The Mass for bridegroom and bride must be omitted, and likewise the blessing of nuptials, if the woman is a widow and has previously received this blessing, S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 3922, or if the man passing to second nuptials has previously received the blessing, unless a custom is in force of imparting the blessing if only the man has received it. Holy Office, Feb. 28, 1912.

Mass for the Dead. - A solemn Mass, or one with chant, of Requiem on the day or for the day of death or burial, with the body present, unburied, or even buried, but not beyond two days, is prohibited on double feasts of the first class: Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, but not also on Monday and Tuesday within the octaves of Easter and Pentecost; of the Most Holy Trinity; of the solemn Commemoration of the Body of Christ; and on the Sunday to which the external solemnity of the Commemoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament is transferred; - on the feasts of the Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; - on the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, on the Commemoration and solemnity of St. Joseph, on the feast of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, All Saints, the Patron of the place, the Dedication and Titular of the church, the last triduum of Major Week, and during the time of exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament. - It is prohibited besides on Ash Wednesday, on Sundays and feast days of precept, even suppressed, the Vigil of Pentecost if the blessing of the font must be made, and on the days of St. Mark and Rogations, if the procession is made, in parochial churches having only one Mass. S. R. C., March 3, 1761, ad 6, n. 2461; Dec. 7, 1844, ad 7, n. 2872; Jan. 27, 1883, n. 3570; Dec. 2, 1891, n. 3755; Feb. 13, 1892, ad 26, n. 3767; May 19, 1896, n. 3903; Jan. 12, 1897, ad 5, n. 3944; Jan. 15, 1897, n. 3946; Nov. 16, 1898, q. 1, ad 1, 2, 3, n. 4003; July 5, 1901, n. 4076; Jan. 8, 1904, n. 4130; July 28, 1911, ad 6, 7, n. 4274.

The body is considered present when a grave cause excuses its lack of presence, not only if it still remains unburied, but also if it has already been buried, but not beyond two days from the burial.

A solemn Mass, or Mass with chant, of Requiem on the day or for the day of death or burial can be sung, for the first time only after the death or after the report has been received, on the first day free from double feasts of the first or second class, and from Sundays or feasts of precept even suppressed, and excluding the Vigils of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost, days within the octaves of Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and the solemn Commemoration of the Most Holy Body of Christ, Ash Wednesday, and the whole of Major Week. Constitution Divino afflatu, Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 5; S. R. C., July 28, 1911, ad 5.

In the same manner, that is, under the same clauses and conditions, a read exequial Mass for a poor deceased person is permitted as well as a Mass with chant. S. R. C., May 9, 1889, n. 4024.

By the day of death or burial is understood the whole space of time from death until burial, even if it is several days.

A solemn Mass or Mass with chant on the third, seventh, thirtieth, and anniversary day from death or burial, or on another stably determined day, if it is impeded on these days, can be anticipated or transferred to the first free day.

The aforesaid Mass is prohibited on Sundays and feasts of precept, even suppressed; in doubles of the first and second class; on the Vigils of the Nativity and Pentecost; within the octaves of Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi; on Ash Wednesday; during the whole of Major Week; during solemn exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament; on Rogation days, if the procession is made, in parochial churches having one Mass.

In lesser doubles, excepting these days just mentioned, anniversaries taken broadly, that is, not from the day of death or burial, which are customarily celebrated once in the year by Chapters, Communities, Confraternities, and other pious Societies for deceased confreres, can be celebrated. Similarly within the octave of All the Faithful Departed, anniversaries taken broadly can be celebrated for the piety of the faithful. Also in these Masses one prayer is said with the sequence. - S. R. C., Aug. 23, 1766, ad 1, 2, n. 2482; Dec. 2, 1891, n. 3753; Constitution Divino afflatu, Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 5.

Private Masses of the Dead on the day or for the day of death or burial, with the body present, unburied, or even buried, but not beyond two days, cannot be celebrated without application for the deceased whose body is physically or morally present. Nor can they be celebrated in churches and public oratories unless on the same day his funeral is held with an exequial Mass. S. C. R., Jan. 12, 1897, n. 3944, ad 3.

In churches and public and semi-public oratories of seminaries, colleges, and religious communities, private Masses can be read only once on one of the three days from death until burial. But in private oratories they can be read on all and each days from death until burial, provided that the body is still physically present in the house and it is not a prohibited day. S. R. C., May 16, 1902, n. 4096; Nov. 10, 1906, n. 4192.

For they are prohibited in doubles of the first and second class; on Sundays and feasts of precept, even suppressed; on the Vigils of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost; on the octave day of Epiphany and Corpus Christi; within the octaves of Easter and Pentecost; on Ash Wednesday; during the whole of Major Week; during solemn exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament. - S. R. C., Jan. 12, 1897, ad 3, ad 4, ad 5, n. 3944; May 28, 1897, n. 3957; July 28, 1911, ad 5.

Other Masses for the Dead, whether solemn or private, are prohibited on Sundays; on double feasts, even not of precept; within the octaves of Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi; on the Vigils of Nativity, Epiphany, Pentecost; during solemn exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament; on Rogation days, if the procession is made, in parochial churches having only one Mass. - Private Masses are also prohibited on the ferias of Lent, except, in each week, the first day free from an office of double rite, on Ember Days, on the second day of Rogations, and also on other Vigils, and on days on which the Mass of Sunday is anticipated or replaced. Collection of the S. R. C., General Index, v. Missa privata de Requie; Constitution Divino afflatu, Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 2.

Nevertheless, in private Masses of the enumerated ferias and vigils (in the preceding paragraph), it will be lawful for a prayer to be added for the Dead for whom the sacrifice is applied, in the penultimate place, as the Rubric of the Missal permits; and thus the indulgence of the privileged altar can be gained. Pius X, Constitution Divino afflatu, Rubr. serv., tit. 10, n. 5. - Cf. the following decree of the Holy Office below.

But in churches or chapels of a cemetery, Masses of Requiem can be said on any day whatever, except, however, double feasts of the first or second class; Sundays and feasts of precept even suppressed; Vigils of the Nativity, Epiphany, Pentecost; Ash Wednesday; the whole of Major Week; and privileged octaves. - S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3903.

In these daily Masses at least three prayers must be said: the first for the one for whom the application is made, the second at choice, the third is Fidelium. But if the Mass is celebrated for the dead in general, or it is not known whether it is for a deceased man or deceased woman, for one or several deceased, for the living or the dead, the prayers must be said which are provided in the Missal for daily Masses. S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 3920.

In the same daily Masses several prayers can be added, the odd number being preserved with the other prescribed prayers, and the prayer for all the Dead being assigned the last place. S. R. C., June 30, 1896, Decr. Geneven., n. 3920.

Decree on the quality of the Mass for gaining the indulgence of a privileged altar. - "For gaining the indulgence of what is called a privileged altar, in the future it is no longer required, under penalty of nullity, that a Mass of Requiem or of a feria or vigil with the prayer proper to the deceased be celebrated; nevertheless this is laudably done, when it is lawful and fitting, for the sake of piety toward the deceased." Holy Office, Feb. 19, 1913, A. A. S., vol. 5, p. 122.

Collects, Prayers. - Collects imposed by the Bishop, unless they have been prescribed by the Ordinary for a grave matter, are omitted in doubles of the first and second class, on Sundays of the first and second class, on the Vigils of the Nativity and Pentecost, within the octaves of Nativity, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, and whenever more than three prayers are prescribed by the Rubric. Rubr. serv., tit. 11.

The faculty of adding prayers in Mass up to seven in simples and ferials is not to be considered suppressed by the new Rubrics, which exclude collects when there is a fourth prayer. But if there are two collects, both must be added after the third prescribed prayer. S. R. C., March 22, 1912, ad 10, 11. "Collects imposed by the Bishop or Ordinary of the place, according to the new rubrics, tit. XI, must be omitted whenever in Mass more than three prayers prescribed by the rubric for that day are to be said. Therefore it is asked: Must collects be omitted when, in private Masses, after three prayers prescribed for that day, there has been added the prayer of the Most Holy Sacrament publicly exposed, or for the Pope or Bishop on the respective anniversaries of election, or consecration or coronation? Resp. In the affirmative." S. R. C., June 21, 1912, ad 5.

On the anniversary of the election and consecration of the Supreme Pontiff throughout the whole world, and of the Bishop in his own diocese, a collect is to be said. The anniversary of the election or translation of a Bishop, for the purpose of the Mass or Collect according to the Ceremonial of Bishops, l. 2, c. 35, is, from the decree of the S. R. C., Urbis et Orbis, Jan. 8, 1910: 1. for residential Bishops elected or translated in Consistory, the day of the Consistory; - 2. for residential Bishops elected or translated by Brief before the Consistory, the day of the date of the Apostolic Letters; - 3. for Coadjutor Bishops with future succession after the death of the one assisted, the day of the date of the Letters.

A collect imposed by the Bishop of the place is to be said even by Regulars, even by foreign priests. It is to be omitted in a conventual or solemn Mass. "Collects imposed by the Bishop or Ordinary of the place, which together with the prayers prescribed by the Rubric exceed the number seven, must be omitted." S. R. C., Jan. 19, 1906.

Inclination of the head at the name of a Saint on his vigil. - "On the vigil of the feast of some Saint whose name is contained in the Canon of the Mass, the celebrant must incline his head when he pronounces the same name, according to the Rubrics of the Missal concerning the Rite of celebrating Mass, tit. V, n. 2." S. R. C., Nov. 24, 1911.

Prayers at the end of Mass. - The prescribed prayers at the end of Mass are to be omitted if the Mass is celebrated with some solemnity, or if immediately and duly after the Mass, without the celebrant departing from the altar, some sacred function or pious exercise follows. S. R. C., June 20, 1913, A. A. S., vol. 5, p. 311.

Thanksgiving. - Priests, after the sacrifice of the Mass, reciting the prayer Obsecro te, dulcissime Domine, etc., and, unless impeded, on their knees, obtain, if duly disposed, remission of the defects and faults contracted in offering it, and an indulgence of three years. Holy Office, Aug. 29, 1912, A. A. S., vol. 4, p. 642.

The Passion in Mass. - It is not an ordinary part of Mass. A sick priest who otherwise could not celebrate Mass could omit it in the celebration of Mass, reading only the last part and celebrating privately to avoid scandal.

The Gospel. - It is an ordinary part of Mass, which it is grave to omit. A priest celebrating before a Cardinal, the Archbishop of the Province, or the Ordinary of the place, after the Gospel has been read, does not kiss the book nor say: Per evangelica dicta, but immediately begins the Creed or waits until the Bishop's chaplain, vested in surplice, or, if he is lacking, the minister, has brought the Missal to the Bishop to be kissed. Cerem. Episc., l. 1, c. 30, n. 1.

The blessing to be given by the priest at the end of Mass, from Rubr., tit. XII, n. 399: if the priest celebrates before the Supreme Pontiff, a Cardinal, Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop existing in his own Province, City, or Diocese, after saying Placeat, etc., he says: Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, and, turning toward the Supreme Pontiff, kneeling, but toward a Cardinal and the others named above, with head inclined, he continues: Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, blessing those present on the side where the Pontiff, Cardinal, etc., is not present. But the blessing is to be given by the Bishop himself in a solemn Mass when he assists in his own diocese vested in cappa magna or cope.

Holy water. - In the last triduum of Major Week it is removed from the sacred vessels. The priest signs himself with it, if he can conveniently do so, when leaving the sacristy to celebrate Mass. Its sprinkling is to be made in collegiate churches before the conventual Mass on Sundays; on these days it can also be done in other churches, but it need not be. On Sundays the sprinkling of the people with blessed water is to be made at the rails of the presbytery. - It is numbered among the sacramentals.

The assistant priest, in solemn Mass, of itself is owed only to Bishops and other inferior Prelates while they are actually exercising pontifical functions. For a newly ordained priest an assistant priest is permitted, with cope without stole, and even with stole if there is a custom. A priest who gives assistance to a Bishop celebrating privately cannot wear the stole, unless likewise there is a custom.

657 ter. Chant, Music, Organ, Vernacular Language. - "Any vernacular songs whatever are altogether prohibited in all Masses which are celebrated either solemnly or only in chant; so that to the melodies which the Rubrics prescribe in the liturgical idiom, no one is permitted to add or mix in others.... While the Most Blessed Sacrament, whether under one species or the other, is elevated, the singers are altogether to be silent, according to the Rubrics, and together with the others they are to adore the Sacrament." S. R. C., May 22, 1894, General Decree n. 3827. Cf. S. R. C., Jan. 31, 1896, n. 3880. - E. M.

Women and girls are also prohibited from singing within or outside the enclosure of the choir in solemn Masses. S. R. C., Sept. 17, 1897, n. 3964. And Gregorian Chant is prescribed in churches. S. R. C., Jan. 8, 1904. But music according to the line of the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Nov. 22, 1903, is rightly admitted.

The present usage of assisting Gregorian chant with organs can be sustained, except only those parts of Offices and Masses which, according to the laws now in force, must be sung entirely without accompanying organs. And in a case of necessity, even in offices and Masses in which the sound of the organ is prohibited, it is lawful to use the organ only to accompany and sustain the chant, the organ being silent when the chant is silent, whether Gregorian or polyphonic chant is used. S. C. R., May 11, 1911; March 22, 1912. "Since in the Motu Proprio of our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, Inter pastoralis officii, on sacred music, Nov. 22, 1903, it is prescribed that 'care is to be taken that Gregorian chant be restored to the use of the people, so that, after the manner of the ancients, the faithful may contribute a more active part in celebrating the divine praises and mysteries,' it is asked: Will it be permitted to allow girls and women, sitting in benches assigned to them in the church separately from the men, to sing the invariable parts of the Mass in Gregorian chant; or at least, outside liturgical functions, to sing hymns or vernacular songs? "Resp. In the affirmative to both, and according to the mind. The mind is: 1. that among the Christian faithful men and boys, as far as can be done, contribute their part in celebrating the divine praises, women and girls nevertheless not being excluded, especially in their absence; and 2. that where a choral service is held, the exclusive singing of women, especially in cathedral churches, is not to be admitted, unless for a grave cause to be recognized by the Ordinary, and caution always being taken that any disorder be avoided." S. R. C., Jan. 17, 1908, ad 2. - "Men are to be altogether separated from women, any inconvenience being avoided, and the consciences of the Ordinaries being burdened concerning these things." S. R. C., Dec. 18, 1908. "Whether in solemn Mass and other functions, in churches in which there is a lack of an organ master or singers, even lay ones, it is lawful to use a machine commonly called a Gramophone for the strictly liturgical Gregorian chant of the variable parts of solemn Mass, hymns, and other canticles? Resp. In the negative."

Canticles in the vernacular idiom are prohibited in sacred functions, and therefore also in Masses celebrated with chant. Outside functions, however, and in the very Masses called private, the contrary custom is tolerated. S. R. C., Jan. 8, 1904. "Liturgical prayers and hymns, for example the Introit, Communion, the hymn Lauda Sion, cannot be sung by the choir of musicians in the vernacular language during a private Mass." S. R. C., March 31, 1909.

In the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the vernacular language can be used in canticles and prayers, unless it is a question of liturgical texts, for example Tantum ergo, the Litany of Loreto, etc. S. R. C., March 31, 1909.

As to the use of the Slavonic language in the sacred Liturgy, one must stand by the decree of the S. R. C., Dec. 18, 1906, by which the privilege is declared to be local, adhering to certain churches, and by no means personal, as though it pertained to certain priests. "It will be lawful for absolutely no one to introduce the Paleo-Slavonic language into the sacred liturgy in other churches, for any cause or pretext whatever. But if any secular or regular priest does otherwise, or attempts it, by that very fact he remains suspended from the celebration of Mass and the other sacred functions, until he obtains pardon from the Apostolic See."

Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass? - It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, or in such a way that the sacrifice begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the host already consecrated, or carry it away with him while fleeing. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him immediately consume both species, if he can; or if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed very quickly in a nearby place. - Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass accidentally, unless for a just cause before the oblation, for example, because of a sermon after the Gospel, because proclamations of banns are to be made. S. R. C., March 23, 1881, n. 3529.

Nor is it lawful to interrupt Mass except for a grave cause before the Canon, for example: 1. To receive a procession, in honor of an arriving Prince, or a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. And if the oblation has not been made, the priest can begin anew, so that they may hear the whole sacred rite. 2. If the priest remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, or not in the state of grace, or is irregular, provided the Mass can be left without scandal or disgrace. - 3. If the church is polluted or one to be avoided arrives. - But it is not lawful to interrupt Mass once the Canon has begun, unless for a graver cause; and after the consecration has been completed, unless for a most grave cause, e.g., if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not lawful to administer other sacraments between the consecration and communion, because they are not of such great necessity. Nevertheless Holy Viaticum could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. But for this it is also required that the celebrant not lose sight of the altar. S. R. C., Dec. 19, 1829, ad 1, n. 2672. Cf. S. R. C., Dec. 7, 1844, n. 2885; Feb. 7, 1874, n. 3322; May 11, 1878, ad 8, n. 3446. "Most theologians... permit a priest to interrupt Mass in order to administer extreme unction to a sick person near death to whom no other sacrament could be conferred." Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 8, c. 6, n. 5; L. 728. - If Mass has been interrupted, if the celebrant returns shortly, it is to be resumed by him from the place where it was interrupted; but if after an hour, and the consecration had not yet been made, it must again be begun from the beginning. And if another priest completes the Mass begun by another after at least one consecration has been performed, he cannot then celebrate another Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 16, 1823, n. 2630. - L. 352, 353, 355; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 83, a. 6, ad 1; Rubr. Miss., De defect.

XII. Those collecting alms of a greater price for Masses, and from these seeking profit, by making them be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of lesser price.

Collecting: collection indicates an abundant quantity of those alms and a deliberate search after the manner of trade. Therefore one would not incur this censure who collected only one or another stipend; or to whom Masses to be celebrated by himself are spontaneously committed. Collecting is said generally, whether they are lay persons or clerics. Collecting alms, etc... where Mass stipends, etc. Therefore the present censure is to be understood only of manual Masses, by no means of those which are owed because of foundation or benefice, or in perpetuity. L., book 6, n. 321, third excommunication. Cf. A.S.S., vol. 4, p. 39; vol. 8, n. 84. Of a greater price, of a lesser price: therefore one does not incur this censure who has Masses celebrated in a place where they are celebrated for the same stipend, although he retains part of the stipend.

From these seeking profit: hence they do not incur the censure who by office collect alms for Masses to be celebrated, if from these they retain for themselves an equitable remuneration of labor, L., l.c., n. 332, dub. 3; or retain them for themselves as alms, if they are truly poor; or simply retain them for themselves as another's thing, for then they must not be regarded as merchants, but as true thieves. Nor indeed do those incur the censure to whom the excess is remitted liberally and altogether spontaneously. Liberally and altogether spontaneously: for they incur it if they ask the priest to remit it, or ask him whether he consents that they retain part; for Benedict XIV, l.c., reckons this among execrable abuses. Finally, those also do not incur the censure who subtract part from the stipend so that it may be spent on certain pious uses, although the S.C.C., September 9, 1874, disapproved this. And from these seeking profit: therefore excommunication is not incurred when someone collects alms, but when, with a lesser stipend handed over to another, he retains a part of it for himself, in grave matter, namely by reason of profit.

In places where, etc.: the word is general; therefore subject to this excommunication is not only one who in another place, but also one who in the same place in which he collects alms commits Masses to be celebrated for a lesser alms, Holy Office, January 13, 1892, namely if he collected the stipends themselves exceeding the tax, and handed over to others only the established stipend, retaining the excess for himself. Exceeding the tax: otherwise it would not be verified that he collected alms of greater price and made Masses be celebrated in a place where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of lesser price, i.e., commonly speaking, whether from the diocesan tax or merely from custom and common practice. E.M.

Other reserved and non-reserved suspensions also accrued.

XVIII. "He who shall have dared in any way or under any pretext to break the statutes in articles 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Decree Ut Debita of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 11, 1904, concerning commerce in Masses and the diminution of stipends, if he is of the priestly order, is liable to suspension from divine things reserved to the Holy See and to be incurred by that very fact; if a cleric not yet initiated into priesthood, he will likewise be subject to the same suspension from the orders received, and besides will become incapable of attaining higher orders; but if a layman, he will be bound by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Bishop." Cf. n. 623. E.M. nn. 627, 1238.

XIX. "20. All Religious, of whom there is question, constituted in Sacred Orders, who shall have been expelled or dismissed, remain perpetually suspended until from the competent Authority, after amendment of life, they have obtained dispensation. Religious or Clerics not in Sacred Orders, expelled or dismissed, are prohibited from ascending to higher Orders without permission of the Holy See. But all expelled or dismissed, even if they have truly amended themselves, will not be able to be admitted to their own or to another Order or Congregation without special permission of the Apostolic See."

"In this region... a custom has arisen... of making bread from crushed grains, and infused in water for some hours, not however unto corruption. They press these grains with the hands, and, when the white matter has come forth, they make breads with hot iron, in the manner customary in Europe.... Whether the aforesaid making of bread for Mass is lawful? Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless let the Vicar Apostolic take care, if it can be done, that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made be not only crushed, but reduced into flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be exactly cleansed by sieve, and that bread be made from the same in the manner used in Europe." S. O. 23 June 1852.

"Whether it is lawful to celebrate with wine made from raisins? Resp. That it is lawful, provided that the liquid is discerned by color and taste to be true wine." S. C. de P. F. 23 July 1706.

Cf. On the Sacrament of Penance, N. 563, 564.

"Whether the Stole for ministering the Most Holy Eucharist outside Mass must always be of the color corresponding to the Office of that day, as the Roman Ritual prescribes, or rather ought to be white, as very fitting for the Sacred Eucharist, as many Doctors judge? Resp. According to the rubric of the Roman Ritual, it ought to be of the color corresponding to the Office of that day." S. R. C. 12 March 1836.

"In the administration of the sacred Eucharist outside Mass, a stole of the color corresponding to the Office of that day is prescribed by the Rubric of the Roman Ritual. It is asked whether the stole of the color of the Office or of the Mass is to be employed 1. on Thursday of Great Week; 2. on vigils and ferias of the four times, or the Monday of Rogations (or on ferias of Lent, where Octaves have been conceded), which occur within a non-privileged Octave, if, according to the Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal, the Office is celebrated of the Octave and the Mass of the Vigil or Feria? Resp. To each, let the Rubric of the Roman Ritual be observed, and where the custom of administering the Sacred Eucharist with a white stole to the Faithful fulfilling the Paschal precept is in force, it is to be tolerated." S. R. C. 11 Aug. 1877.

The Prayer and Versicles of the season must be said, with Alleluia omitted. S. R. C. 26 Nov. 1878.

"For the sick near death, of whatever condition they may be, although they dwell in a sordid and vile place or hut, let the Viaticum of the Most Holy Eucharist be brought, since with God there is no acceptance of persons, and for our salvation he did not shrink from the stable or the ignominy of the Cross." Clement IX, Const. In Excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669.

"... As soon as the S. C. understood that in certain Dioceses of that region a custom, or rather abuse, had prevailed that Priests would carry the Most Holy Sacrament with them from morning until evening, for this cause only, that they might perhaps happen upon some sick person, it judged that it should be written to the Metropolitans, so that it would declare that custom to be altogether abhorrent from the practice of the Church... Issue such decrees, by which the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament may be restricted to urgent causes only, and to the actual exercise of the Priestly ministry...." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 25 Feb. 1853.

"But where the force and iniquity of the Turks prevails, let the Priest always have the stole covered with his own garments, let him conceal the pyx in a little bag or burse, which, suspended by cords from the neck, he should place in his breast, and let him never proceed alone, but let him be accompanied by at least one faithful person in default of a Cleric." Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744.

"That Sacred Viaticum can be carried to the sick without a stole in a case of necessity." S. C. de P. F. 20 Dec. 1739. Father Windsiller, Missionary in China.

"... 1. Whether it can be lawful for the Missionaries of these regions secretly, and without light and stole, to administer the Most Holy Sacrament to the sick, when otherwise it cannot be administered? ... 2. Whether the Vicar Apostolic can permit Missionaries that they carry and administer the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to Christians ... detained in prisons? ... It could easily be administered to them without danger of contempt of the Most Holy Eucharist, if it were lawful to administer it without surplice and stole. Resp. To the 1st affirmatively, for the matter concerns a faculty already conceded by the Supreme Pontiffs. To the 2nd affirmatively and as regards those detained for a time, insofar as they ask, yet according to the judgment and prudence of the Vicar Apostolic." S. C. de P. F. 9 Dec. 1822; 5 July 1854.

"Whether it can be permitted, in this time of persecution, that Confessors of the faith condemned to death because of the faith, and to whom the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is brought in prison, can secretly receive it with their own hands and secretly communicate themselves, lest the priest communicating them in the ordinary manner be recognized and seized? Resp. Affirmatively, provided that so great a Sacrament is exposed to no danger of irreverence or other danger." S. C. de P. F. 10 Aug. 1841.

Resp. "Negatively, unless there is a custom." S. R. C. 22 Sept. 1837. But after Mass it is lawful, S. R. C. 7 Sept. 1850, or, if custom again bears this, after the Gloria has been sung. S. R. C. 13 Jan. 1882. Cf. Gardell. n. 4499; D'Annibale, N. 273, 274.

"Is it to be genuflected by a priest returning to the altar after the communion of the faithful, before he covers the sacred pyx, and again to be genuflected before, the pyx having been placed back in the tabernacle, he closes the little door of the tabernacle itself?" S. R. C. 23 Dec. 1862. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 547.

"The General of the Order of St. John of God humbly asked from the S. R. C. that it deign to declare the following doubts concerning the manner of carrying Sacred Communion within Mass to the sick, in force in the hospitals of his Order, namely: 1. Whether, after the Confiteor, Misereatur, Ecce Agnus, Domine non sum dignus have been recited at the altar, it can be permitted that the Priest with the Pyx, without humeral veil, carry Sacred Communion to the sick, accompanied by at least two persons carrying candles, and with an umbrella also employed, if it can be done, especially if the sick are distant from the altar? 2. Whether Sacred Communion can be carried in the above-mentioned manner not only in the whole hospital, whether from the posterior part of the altar, but also in some rooms, from which, although the altar is not seen, nevertheless the voice of the Priest celebrating is heard? 3. Whether it can be permitted that, in place of the Priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist to the sick, another, even a layman, recite the prayers? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, nothing stands in the way, provided however that in the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament an umbrella is altogether employed. To the 3rd, nothing stands in the way that those standing by recite some prayers while the Sacred Eucharist is distributed." S. R. C. 7 Feb. 1874.

"Whether it is lawful for one celebrating in a private or religious house to carry before purification Holy Communion, for the sake of devotion and not by way of Viaticum, to a sick person dwelling in the same house, although one must ascend to the upper part of the house and pass through another corridor? Resp. It is not lawful, according to the decree of 19 Dec. 1829; but if necessity urges, let Mass be finished." S. R. C. 17 Dec. 1844.

Cf. N. 295.

"Whether, for exposing the Sacred Host in an Ostensorium, it is lawful to use a lunula which consists of two little glass disks, surrounded and to be closed by a thin border or circle of gilded silver, so that the Sacred Host adheres underneath to the silver circle itself, but before and behind immediately touches the glass disks themselves, and through them is held upright? Resp. As it is set forth in the case, that it is not becoming to enclose the sacred species between glass plates whose surfaces immediately touch them." S. R. C. 4 Feb. 1871.

"Whenever from a private cause the Most Holy Eucharist will seem to be exposed, let it never be extracted from the tabernacle, but, with the pyx veiled, let it be placed in the open little door of the same tabernacle, with the assistance of some priest vested with stole and surplice, and with at least six wax lights. We command that the same be observed in churches of seculars." S. C. EE. and RR. 6 Dec. 1602, at Benedict XIV, Inst. 30, n. 21.

"1. Since from certain responses of the Most Holy Roman Congregations some think that the Sacred Pyx, with the little door of the Tabernacle opened, can be exposed to the piety of the faithful, but by no means extracted from it; but others judge that it can be brought out only so that with it the people may be blessed, as is customarily done on certain days in several Churches of Regulars; it is asked whether a custom of this kind can be admitted? 2. And insofar as negatively; can it be permitted, by force of custom, to those Congregations or Religious families which have been accustomed to do so also elsewhere? 3. Can it be conceded, to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, also to other Congregations asking for it? Resp. To the 1st, affirmatively. To the 2nd, provision has been made in the first. To the 3rd, affirmatively." S. R. C. 16 Jan. 1886.

"Whether the Instruction for the Prayer of Forty Hours, first issued at Rome by order of Clement XI of happy memory, can and must be observed also outside the City? Resp. That the aforesaid Instruction does not oblige outside the City; nevertheless those are to be praised who strive to conform themselves to it, unless something else has been established by the Ordinaries of places." S. R. C. 12 July 1749.

"The Vicar Apostolic of Western Tongking... permitted that in diverse districts the Most Holy Sacrament be preserved, namely in particular rooms decently adorned, for the sick, with a lamp lit. For unless it were done so, a very great multitude of the sick would die without Viaticum. Hence he most humbly asks that Your Holiness will deign to approve this practice, in the aforesaid and similar case, for the tranquility of the conscience of the Orator. Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX kindly remitted the prayers to the judgment and prudence of the Vicar Apostolic, with necessary and opportune faculties, while the circumstances endure, and with the things to be observed being observed." 22 Sept. 1850.

"But as regards the Benedictions desired by those faithful, and customarily given by ancient custom in some churches, either with a portable statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary in solemnities of the same Virgin Mother of God, or in novenaries and other pious exercises instituted in her honor, as in the so-called Marian Month, etc., or likewise with a statue of the Infant Jesus, from the time of the Nativity of the Lord up to Epiphany, we judge that nothing plainly stands in the way that a custom of this kind can be tolerated by Your Amplitude." S. C. de P. F. 1 Apr. 1854.

The key of the Tabernacle is to be retained by Parish Priests, Rectors, Sacrists, or anyone else to whom the custody of the Tabernacle belongs, with himself, or in a safe place and closed by a key. And this is to be observed also by Regulars. S. C. EE. and RR. 9 Feb. 1751. Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Tabernaculum.

"Petroleum, or another Oil from vegetables, can by no means be employed for illuminating the Church; but only in a case of necessity from the prudence of Ordinaries." S. C. R. 20 March 1869. "Besides candles from wax, it cannot be tolerated that illumination from gas also be had (upon Altars); the aforesaid use (gas upon Altars) must be prohibited." S. C. R. 13 Apr. 1883. The same is to be said with stronger reason concerning electric light.

"To a sick person near death, who has been judged worthy of absolution of sins, the Most Holy Viaticum also is to be conceded." S. C. de P. F. 26 July 1845.

"Viaticum is not to be administered unless they at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing the presence of Christ the Lord in the sacred Host." S. C. S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

Cf. On the 6th Precept of the Church, N. 489.

"With salt having been tasted beforehand by Catechumens in the conferral of Baptism, although the fast seems to be broken, nevertheless there is still no doubt that, after receiving Baptism, they can be admitted to sacred Communion; indeed truly they ought to be: so altogether does the Church, in whose power it is to dispense in peculiar cases from the general law of the Eucharistic fast, introduced by herself for those who outside danger of death desire to receive sacred Communion, prescribe in the Roman Ritual, where it hands down the rite by which Baptism is to be conferred on adults." S. C. de P. F. 13 Feb. 1806.

"Nuns asking for sacred Communion daily will have to be admonished that they communicate on the days prescribed by the Institute of their Order. But if any shine forth by purity of mind and have grown so warm by fervor of spirit that they can seem worthy of more frequent or daily reception of the Most Holy Sacrament, let this be permitted to them by Superiors." S. C. C. 12 Feb. 1679. Cf. Collect. Const. etc. for the use of the Apostolic Workers, Paris, 1880, n. 367.

"Whether and by whose license nuns ought to receive the Eucharist who wish to receive it beyond the days established by the constitutions, or by the custom of the monastery, so that on those days all nuns communicate? Resp. By license of the ordinary confessor, and not of directors, with prior participation of the ordinary Prelate." S. C. C. 14 Apr. 1725. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 2, p. 181.

"As regards sacramental Communion, the Most Holy Lord commanded that the Constitutions of the Sisters... are to be reduced to conformity with common law, as established by Decrees of the Holy See.... Let the Superior alone have the faculty of prohibiting a Sister access to Sacramental Communion in the single case in which she, after the last Confession, has committed a somewhat grave and public defect with the astonishment of the other sisters, and this until the aforesaid Sister has again approached the Sacrament of Penance...." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 June 1876. Much less does the Chapter of the Monastery have the aforesaid faculty. S. C. C. 14 Apr. 1725. Cf. cited Collect., n. 368.

"... The aforesaid sisters and certain others, supported by the authority of ecclesiastical superiors, are all refreshed daily by the sacred Synaxis, although, according to the rules and decisions of very many Theologians, such and so great a grace ought to be reserved for certain persons only and in certain circumstances only. But since the above-praised pious sisters would be affected with much grief if they were to be deprived of so great a consolation, it is asked what must be done in the case? Resp. That the custom of nuns approaching daily to sacramental Communion is laudable. But it pertains to the Confessor to permit this to individuals according to the rules handed down by approved authors and especially by St. Alphonsus de Ligorio." S. Poenit. 19 Nov. 1885. "That the custom is to be praised, and the use of frequently receiving the Most Holy Eucharist to be promoted, according to the disposition of the Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 8." S. R. C. 2 Dec. 1885.

Cf. On the Theological Virtues, N. 192.

"1. Whether it is lawful for priests to use black vestments and to celebrate a Mass of Requiem, so that they may satisfy the obligation which they undertook of celebrating according to the intention of the one giving the alms, when they are wholly ignorant what his intention is, whether for the dead or not? 2. Whether it is lawful for priests to use black vestments and to celebrate a Mass of Requiem, so that they may satisfy the obligation which they undertook of celebrating for the living? The S. C. R. rescripted to the 1st affirmatively, to the 2nd affirmatively, provided that he who gave the alms did not prescribe otherwise." S. C. de P. F. 13 Oct. 1856.

"We decree and declare that all and singular Bishops, increased by whatever dignity, even Cardinalitial, likewise Abbots having jurisdiction quasi-episcopal over Clergy and people with a separate territory, on Sundays and other feast days which are still observed by precept, and which have been removed from the number of feast days of precept, every excuse of smallness of revenues or any other exception removed, are bound to celebrate and apply Mass for the people committed to them.

And lest access lie open to any doubt, we declare that the same Bishops and Abbots will satisfy this office by the celebration and application of one Mass for the whole people committed to them, even if they rule two or more Dioceses and Abbeys equally principally united. We know indeed that Our Roman Congregations have decreed otherwise concerning parish priests managing two or more parochial churches equally principally united; in each of these it is necessary that individual Masses be celebrated on feast days and applied for the people. But one account belongs to parish priests, another to Bishops. For since to each parish priest a special and defined care of the people has been committed in each parish, on feast days the parish priest ought not only to celebrate for the people, but also to admit the people into the parochial temple, so that it may be present at the most holy sacrifice of Mass, and hear the word of God, and receive the Sacraments according to opportunity, and be cultivated by all those offices which are to be furnished especially on Sundays and other feasts. But these things cannot apply to Bishops, who are situated in a dissimilar condition and cause, since by no law today are they ordered on all feast days to perform the holy Sacrifice in the Cathedral church.

But although by no means necessary, nevertheless we judge it opportune to declare that those things which have been constituted above do not regard Bishops who are called Titular, and who, promoted to episcopal dignity, are therefore adorned by the Roman Pontiff with the title of Cathedral Churches which, once flourishing, now are destitute of Catholic Clergy and people, lest namely their ancient dignity and memory be utterly deleted. For since they themselves do not take possession of their sees, only when it has been received are Bishops bound to fulfill the duty of which we have spoken (S. C. Rit. in Marsor., 12 November 1831), and since neither Clergy nor people is entrusted to their rule, it is sufficiently established that, as they lack the use and exercise of the power received from episcopal consecration, so also they are by no means subject to the offices and burdens of episcopal care. But nevertheless, if account is had of episcopal equity and charity, it cannot but seem consonant that they also sometimes offer sacrifice, so that God may look upon the miserable condition of those Churches by whose title and name they themselves are honored. With this matter the things fit best which were said by Pius VI, Our Predecessor, in the consecration of the Bishop of Cyrene on 4 October in the year 1778 in the Ostian Basilica; namely, when enumerating the causes on account of which the Apostolic See is accustomed to confer Churches even occupied by infidels, he says, 'it is fitting that there exist someone upon whom it singularly falls, if not to rule that captive portion of the miserable flock, at least to pour out prayers and tears continually for the same to the Father of mercies.'" Leo XIII, Const. In suprema rei, Ides of June, 1882.

"20. Since a Bishop on feast days ought to apply for his sheep, it is asked whether, when the Bishop on these days celebrates pontifically, the canons ought to sing the conventual Mass for benefactors, and when? 22. Are Bishops bound to the application of Mass for their sheep after possession has been obtained, or as soon as they have been elected in consistory? 23. Are Capitular Vicars bound to this application of Mass when the See is Vacant? Resp. To 20. Let the Hebdomadary, or he to whom the burden of the conventual Mass belongs, celebrate that Mass read either before or after the pontifical Mass. To 22. After possession has been obtained. To 23. Negatively." S. R. C. 12 Nov. 1851, Gardell. n. 4669.

"1. Whether apostolic Vicars and Missionaries, who in whatever way undertake care of souls in some determinate place, are bound indiscriminately from justice to apply Mass for the people on feast days? And insofar as affirmatively: 2. Upon which Apostolic Vicars and Missionaries does a burden of this kind fall? 3. Whether to those who are not bound from justice one must respond: it is fitting from charity, or: they are bound from charity, to apply Mass for the people? 4. Whether, the formula 'they are bound from charity' being approved, this ought to be understood of obligation under grave sin? Resp. To 1. Negatively, provided that the matter is not concerning places in which the Episcopal Sees and Parishes are already canonically erected, and to these the Apostolic Vicar and Missionary have been sent, so that they may act in the place of legitimate Pastors. To 2. Provision has been made in the first. To 3. The expression 'to be bound from charity' is to be avoided; but it is to be said 'to be fitting from charity,' and this in such a way that no signification of properly so called obligation appears. To 4. Provision has been made in the third." S. C. de P. F. 23 March 1863. Previously the S. C. had answered: "Missionaries are bound from charity." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 407.

“Chapter 1. On the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.—In the first place, the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that, in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually opposed: that our Savior Himself always sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to His natural manner of existing, and that, nevertheless, in many other places He is sacramentally present to us in His substance by that manner of existing which, although we can scarcely express it in words, we can nevertheless apprehend by thought illuminated by faith as possible to God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe. For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and discoursed concerning this most holy Sacrament, most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable Sacrament at the Last Supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified in express and clear words that He was giving them His own very Body and His Blood; and since those words, commemorated by the holy Evangelists and afterward repeated by St. Paul, bear that proper and most manifest meaning according to which they were understood by the Fathers, it is indeed a most unworthy crime that they are twisted by certain contentious and depraved men into fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church. As the pillar and ground of truth, she has detested these fabrications devised by impious men as satanic, always acknowledging with a grateful and mindful spirit this most excellent benefit of Christ.

“Chapter 2. On the Reason for the Institution of This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love toward men, making a remembrance of His wonderful works; and in its reception He commanded us to cherish His memory and to proclaim His death until He Himself comes to judge the world. Moreover, He willed this Sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who said, He who eats me, he also shall live because of me, may be nourished and strengthened; and as an antidote by which we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins. Furthermore, He willed it to be a pledge of our future glory and perpetual felicity, and thus a symbol of that one body of which He Himself is the head, and to which He willed us to be bound, as members, by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, so that we all might say the same thing and there might be no schisms among us.

“Chapter 3. On the Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist over the Other Sacraments.—This indeed is common to the Most Holy Eucharist with the other Sacraments: that it is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace. But this excellent and singular thing is found in it: that the other Sacraments first possess the power of sanctifying when someone uses them, whereas in the Eucharist the Author of sanctity is present before its use. For the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord when He nevertheless truly affirmed that what He was giving was His Body. And this faith has always been in the Church of God: that immediately after the consecration, the true Body of Our Lord and His true Blood exist under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and divinity; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; and the Body itself under the species of wine, the Blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by the force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead, nevermore to die, are united with one another; and the Divinity, furthermore, by reason of its admirable hypostatic union with the Body and soul. Wherefore it is most true that just as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under every part of that species, and likewise whole under the species of wine and under its parts.

“Chapter 4. On Transubstantiation.—Since, however, Christ our Redeemer said that what He offered under the species of bread was truly His Body, it has therefore always been the persuasion of the Church of God—and this holy Synod now declares it anew—that, by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This conversion has fittingly and properly been called transubstantiation by the holy Catholic Church.

“Chapter 5. On the Worship and Veneration to Be Shown to This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore no place for doubt is left that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, should in veneration render to this Most Holy Sacrament the worship of latria which is due to the true God. For it is not, on that account, to be less adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be received; for we believe that the same God is present in it whom the eternal Father, when bringing Him into the world, says: And let all the Angels of God adore Him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; whom, finally, Scripture testifies to have been adored by the Apostles in Galilee. The holy Synod furthermore declares that this custom was most piously and religiously introduced into the Church of God: that each year, on a certain particular and festive day, this transcendent and venerable Sacrament should be celebrated with singular veneration and solemnity, and that it should be carried reverently and honorably through the streets and public places in processions. For it is most just that certain sacred days should have been established, on which all Christians, with a certain singular and uncommon manifestation, may testify their grateful and mindful spirits toward their common Lord and Redeemer for so ineffable and altogether divine a benefit, by which the victory and triumph of His death is represented. And thus indeed it was fitting that victorious truth should celebrate triumph over falsehood and heresy, so that its adversaries, placed in the sight of so great a splendor and amid so great a rejoicing of the universal Church, may either waste away, weakened and broken, or, affected with shame and confounded, may at length come to their senses.

“Chapter 6. On Reserving the Sacrament of the Sacred Eucharist and Carrying It to the Sick.—The custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in the sacred repository is so ancient that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognized it. Moreover, that the Sacred Eucharist itself should be carried to the sick and that this practice should be diligently preserved in the churches, besides being joined with the greatest equity and reason, is also found to have been commanded in many Councils and was observed by the most ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Therefore this holy Synod establishes that this salutary and necessary custom is wholly to be retained.

“Chapter 7. On the Preparation to Be Employed That One May Receive the Sacred Eucharist Worthily.—If it does not become anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently ought he take care not to approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of terror in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, for one wishing to communicate, that precept of his is to be recalled to mind: Let a man prove himself. Ecclesiastical custom, however, declares that this proving is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this is to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it is incumbent by office to celebrate, provided that access to a confessor is not lacking to them. But if, with necessity pressing, a priest shall celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.

“Chapter 8. On the Use of This Admirable Sacrament.—As regards its use, however, our Fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this Holy Sacrament. For they taught that some receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others spiritually only, namely those who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by a living faith which works through charity perceive its fruit and usefulness; while the third receive it both sacramentally and spiritually. These, however, are those who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table. In sacramental reception, however, it was always the custom in the Church of God that the laity receive Communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves. This custom, as descending from Apostolic tradition, ought rightly and deservedly to be retained. Finally, with paternal affection the holy Synod admonishes, exhorts, asks, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that each and all who are reckoned by the Christian name should now at last unite and agree in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and, mindful of so great a majesty and of so excellent a love of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave His beloved soul as the price of our salvation and His flesh for us to eat, that they should believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His Body and Blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, such devotion and piety of spirit, and such worship, that they may be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be for them truly the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind; so that, strengthened by its vigor, they may be able to pass from the journey of this miserable pilgrimage to the heavenly fatherland, there to eat without any veil the same Bread of Angels which they now eat beneath sacred veils.

“Since, however, it is not enough to state the truth unless errors are uncovered and refuted, it has pleased the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, so that all, the Catholic doctrine now having been recognized, may also understand what heresies must be guarded against and avoided by them.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall deny that, in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained, but shall say that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, only the species of bread and wine remaining—a conversion which the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall deny that, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species and, separation having been made, under each single part of either species: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that, after the consecration has been completed, the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist except only in its use while it is being received, but not before or after, and that the true Body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles which are reserved or remain after Communion: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say either that the principal fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that no other effects proceed from it: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, including external worship, and therefore is neither to be venerated with a particular festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the Holy Church, nor publicly set before the people that He may be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for the Sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacred repository, but that immediately after consecration it must necessarily be distributed to those present; or that it is not lawful for it to be carried honorably to the sick: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that Christ set forth in the Eucharist is eaten only spiritually, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall deny that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of Holy Mother Church: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for a priest celebrating to communicate himself: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema. And, lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the holy Synod itself establishes and declares that those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may even think themselves, must necessarily make sacramental confession beforehand if access to a confessor is available. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately assert the contrary, or even to defend it in public disputation, let him by that very fact be excommunicated.”

“1. That if a consecrated host should fall or be cast into a sewer, mud, or some filthy place, then, while the species remain, beneath them it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the substance of bread returns.—2. That if a consecrated host should be gnawed by a mouse or consumed by a brute animal, then, while the said species remain, beneath them it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the substance of bread returns.—3. That if a consecrated host should be received by a just man or a sinner, then, while the species is being broken by the teeth, Christ is snatched up to heaven and does not pass into the stomach of man.”—Errors of John de Latone condemned by the Holy Office in the year 1371.

“By Apostolic authority We prohibit anyone henceforth from attempting to sacrifice with dried lees of wine or with crumbs of bread.” Decree of Alexander III from the Bull of the year 1263 to the Bishop of Uppsala.

“In this region ... a custom has arisen ... of making bread from grains that have been bruised and soaked in water for some hours, though not to the point of corruption. They press these grains with their hands and, from the white matter that comes forth, make breads with a hot iron in the manner customary in Europe.... Is the aforesaid manner of making bread lawful for the Mass?—Response. Affirmative; nevertheless, if it can be done, let the Apostolic Vicar take care that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made not merely be crushed, but be reduced to flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be thoroughly purified by a sieve, and that the bread be made from it in the manner employed in Europe. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX approved the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers.” Holy Office, 25 June 1852, Apostolic Vicariate of Coimbatore.

“In this my Diocese of N. and in the neighboring dioceses, genuine fine flours have for many years been sold in large measure, which have often been used even in the formation of hosts for the Holy Mass. And many priests, in good faith or doubtful faith concerning the validity of the matter, celebrated the Divine Sacrifice with hosts made from such flours....

“Therefore I pray Your Most Reverend Eminence to be pleased to obtain for me from the Holy See a benign sanation for these my priests (also for Masses celebrated outside the diocese), and, subordinately, to obtain for them that they may discharge every burden of conscience by the celebration of a small number of Masses, which would be determined in a very mild proportion by the Ordinary in the individual cases.

“Response. The Most Holy One is to be supplicated that, insofar as there is need, he supply from the Treasury of the Church, with account taken, concerning the Masses to be celebrated, of those who celebrated in good faith and of those who celebrated in doubtful faith. The Most Holy One confirmed the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers and benignly granted the requested favor.” Holy Office, 27 January 1897.

“Whether wine made from dried grapes (commonly called zibibbo) can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Let the decree of Friday, 22 July 1706, be given, namely: ‘It is lawful, provided that the liquid to be extracted from zibibbo, or dried grapes, is recognized from color, odor, and taste to be true wine.’” Holy Office, 7 May 1879.

“It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acidic taste owing to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine and which forms, with the excess tartaric acid, potassium bitartrate, which precipitates to the bottom of the cask. It was therefore asked whether this wine, thus treated, was lawful for the Mass.—Response. It is not expedient.” Holy Office, 9 May 1892.

“To guard against the danger of the corruption of wine, two remedies are proposed: 1. Let a small quantity of brandy be added to natural wine. 2. Let the wine be heated to sixty-five degrees. Are these remedies lawful in wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and which is to be preferred?—Response. The wine as set forth in the second place is to be preferred.” Holy Office, 8 May 1887.

“In several parts of Gaul, ... the white wine which serves for the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is so weak and feeble that it cannot be preserved for long unless a certain quantity of spirit of wine (spirito, alcohol) is mixed with it.—1. Is a mixture of this kind lawful? 2. And, if affirmative, what quantity of foreign matter of this kind is permitted to be added to the wine? 3. In the affirmative case, is it required that the spirit of wine be extracted from pure wine, or from the fruit of the vine?—Response. Provided that the spirit (alcohol) was extracted from the fruit of the vine, that the added alcoholic quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and that the mixture is made when the wine is very new, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 30 July 1890.

“The sweet wine which is customarily employed for the Sacrifice of the Mass in Spain naturally contains spirit beyond the proportion of twelve percent. It is asked: 1. Whether the mixture of ten parts of spirit per hundred, which, as experience establishes, is altogether necessary for the preservation of the sweet wine, can be continued. 2. Whether wine thus made can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Negative in relation to the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 15 April 1891.

“Since it is difficult to buy unmixed wine in Europe, ... already for many years it has seemed safer and easier to the missionaries of this Vicariate to make wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass in this very region. The grapes, however, which are found in the northern parts of the Chinese Empire contain an exceedingly small quantity of sugar; from this it comes about that the wine pressed from them for the Sacrifice of the Mass has only the smallest portion of alcohol and therefore can scarcely be preserved incorrupt, especially in view of the prolonged and intense heats of summer, which are most favorable to corruption. The inconvenience is removed and wine is obtained which can be safely preserved and is not disagreeable to sight, taste, or smell, if ten pounds of cane sugar (that is, from the grass-like plant botanically called Saccharum officinarum and commonly called in French canne à sucre) are added to one hundred pounds of grapes immediately after they have been crushed, and this mass is then fermented in the customary manner. When it has ceased to boil, from one hundred pounds of the mass (containing nine pounds of sugar according to what has been set forth), sixty-seven pounds of wine are obtained, which, as it is lawful to conjecture from chemical calculation, contain in practice at most four and a half pounds (that is, about one-fifteenth part of the total weight) of alcohol generated from the sugar. In other words, by the aforesaid operation true wine from the vine is obtained, one hundred parts of which have six or seven parts of heterogeneous alcohol—that is, alcohol not produced from the vine—mixed with them. We have retained this practice the more willingly as it becomes more impossible for us from day to day to obtain spirit of wine (alcohol) generated from the vine. But now, since a certain doubt has arisen, it is humbly asked: 1. Whether this practice is safe for obtaining wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass. If negative: 2. Whether it is valid. 3. What if wine of this kind was employed in Masses owed in justice?

“Response. Spirit or alcohol which was extracted from the fruit of the vine is rather to be added to wine for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and its quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, is not to exceed the proportion of twelve percent. A mixture of this kind is to be made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside; and according to the mind: The mind is that, if the missionaries are unable to procure spirit of wine, they should obtain it themselves by distilling the wine of the country, or they should mix dried grapes with the grapes of the country, causing them to ferment together.” Holy Office, 25 June 1891.

“In Brazil it is exceedingly difficult to make true wine for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass ... unless it be made in that very region. Now, the grape in these places is so weak and watery that, in order to obtain tolerable wine, some sugar from the plant which we commonly call canna de assugar must be mixed with the must; and wine is also made in this manner, which priests commonly use in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. But now, the response of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition issued on 25 June 1891 having become known, doubts and anxieties of conscience have arisen.... Whether wine thus made can or cannot safely be employed for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

“Response. In place of sugar extracted from the sugarcane, commonly called canna de assugar, spirit of alcohol is rather to be added, provided that it was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that its quantity, added to that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent; a mixture of this kind is to be made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

“The Archbishop of Tarragona in Spain sets forth that the sweet wines which are made in this region and are greatly desired by priests for the celebration of Mass already exceed twelve degrees of alcoholic strength after the first fermentation, which the wines of Marseilles do not reach even with the permitted addition of alcoholic liquid.—Nevertheless, in order that these generous and sweet wines, although endowed with greater strength than the wines of Marseilles, may safely be exported to foreign nations, they must possess eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength; otherwise, because of their very sweetness, they are liable to new fermentations and, during transport by sea, for the most part become sour. For this reason our wine merchants implore a favor similar to that which was granted to the petitions of the Bishop of Marseilles praised above, namely, the faculty of fortifying with spirit or alcohol extracted indeed from the fruit of the vine the wines, especially the sweet ones, so that those which naturally reach more or less fifteen degrees of alcoholic strength may rise to eighteen. For thus the corruption which they are accustomed to undergo from repeated fermentations is prevented, and they can be conveyed more safely to foreign nations which lack wine suitable for offering sacrifice becomingly.—Furthermore, as they say, in some regions of Spain there prevails a most ancient custom by which many priests make wine for themselves for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire or by drying the grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be warranted by the declaration of the Holy Office on 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from dried grapes. 1. Whether so much spirit or alcohol extracted from grapes may be added to the aforesaid wines, especially the sweet ones, for their preservation that they rise to about seventeen or eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength, without thereby ceasing to be suitable matter for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. 2. Whether it is lawful, for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation was condensed by evaporation with fire.

“Response. To the first: In view of the newly adduced matters, provided that in the proposed case the spirit was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that the alcoholic quantity to be added, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, and that the mixture is made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—To the second: It is lawful, provided that a boiling of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and is in fact obtained.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

“The Roman Church confects the Sacrament of the Eucharist from unleavened bread.” Confession of faith of Michael Palaeologus.

“The Body of Christ is truly confected in either unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and priests ought to confect the Body of the Lord in the one or the other, namely each according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern.” Council of Florence, Decree of Union with the Greeks, in the Bull of Eugene IV, Laetentur coeli; Profession of Faith for the Greeks prescribed by Gregory XIII; Profession of Faith for the Easterners prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

“To all the faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Eastern, dwelling in places in which there is no church or priest of their own rite, the faculty is henceforth granted by the Holy See of receiving Holy Communion, not only at the point of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for the sake of devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided that it is Catholic.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 18 August 1893; A. S. S., vol. 27, p. 441. Cf. C. no. 1998 ff.

1. Xaverius, a parish priest, very occupied at Easter time in hearing confessions, commits communion to be distributed to the people to Stephen the deacon. For otherwise he himself would have to distribute it, not without inconvenience to the parishioners, whose confessions he would often have to defer to another day, since no other priest is present in that parish.

Quaer. Whether rightly?

R. Togni, Instruct. etc. p. 1. c. 6., seems to deny it. For although generally he first says that a deacon can administer the Eucharist by delegation in a case of necessity, nevertheless afterward he raises the question: "Can a deacon dispense the Eucharist when a presbyter is present?" And he answers: "By no means; for this is forbidden to him by Can. 15 of the Second Council of Arles and Can. 38 of the Fourth Council of Carthage." Likewise he raises the question: "Are the sick to be refreshed with the Eucharist by a deacon?" And he answers: "Negatively, except in a case of necessity, namely, if a priest is lacking and the sick man is in danger of life."

But these things are against the common doctrine; and therefore the proposed question must be answered: Affirmatively. For a deacon can, in grave necessity and by commission, distribute communion to the people, according to the common opinion of the doctors. I. M. 527. Pavone aptly has these things, Spicilegio, dissert. 9. num. 208: "The deacon can touch the Eucharist when, serving the priest, he either exposes it in the Ostensorium, or replaces the particles in the pyx, or in need administers it to the people. The words of the Fourth Council of Carthage, A.D. 399, Can. 35, related Dist. 93. C. Praesente 18, are: Diaconus, praesente presbytero, eucharistiam... populo, si necessitas cogat, iussus eroget, 'Let the deacon, in the presence of the presbyter, if necessity compels, distribute the Eucharist to the people when ordered.' And earlier, in canon 14 of the Council of Nicaea, it was established concerning deacons that si non fuerit in praesenti vel episcopus, vel presbyter, tunc ipsi proferant, 'if neither bishop nor presbyter is present, then they themselves may bring it forth.' This canon is thus reported by Rufinus, priest of Aquileia: Si vero presbyter nullus sit in praesenti, tunc demum etiam ipsis licere dividere, 'But if no presbyter is present, then at last it is lawful also for them to distribute.' Conc. Nic. I. A.D. 325, apud Labbé in amplis. collect. Gelasius I spoke in the same way when writing to the Bishops of Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicily: deacons, he said, Sacri Corporis prorogationem sub conspectu Pontificis seu presbyteri, nisi his absentibus, ius non habeant exercendi, 'do not have the right of exercising the distribution of the Sacred Body in the sight of the Pontiff or presbyter, unless these are absent.' Labbé ibid. a. 492. Epist. 9. c. 8. Therefore, when the priest is present, the deacon, besides necessity, needs his commission in order to dispense the Eucharist; but when he is not present, necessity alone is enough. Then the priest can give him such a commission when he himself is impeded. Colet, speaking of the deacon, who cannot indiscriminately, says: ut quilibet sacerdos, sed tantum, vel absente sacerdote, vel, eo quidem praesente sed iustas ob necessitates, sacram synaxim dispensare potest, 'as any priest can, but only when the priest is absent, or when he is indeed present but because of just necessities, can he dispense the sacred synaxis.' Th. Mor. c. 5. de Min. euch. art. 2. And this, he continues to say, is lawful even in places where it has never before been practiced; because, since such commission was always given to deacons in the first centuries in the East and in the West, although this custom has ceased because of the multitude of priests, nevertheless when need occurs in the present time, the same commission can be given; potest enim Ecclesia quidquid olim potuit, 'for the Church can do whatever it once could.' And in order not to cause scandal to the people, who have not yet seen communion administered by deacons, it is necessary to instruct them that this is lawful. But what is the necessity that makes it lawful? When there is no commission of the priest, the only case of necessity would be the administration of Viaticum, which cannot be deferred until a priest comes; because although, as we have seen, the Council of Nicaea and Pope Gelasius permitted this without necessity, for the absence of the priest alone, nevertheless today, because of the change of discipline, all the sacred doctors restrict it to the said necessity. But when the said commission is present, the just cause is, as Suarez writes, quod sacerdos sit debilis vel infirmus, 'that the priest be weak or ill,' de Sacr. euch. d. 72. s. 1.; and according to the opinion of Leander adopted by Amort: Si sacerdos sit debilis, infirmus, aut aliis exercitiis impeditus, aut si non possit communicare tot homines, et non sit alius sacerdos, qui id velit vel commode possit efficere, 'If the priest is weak, ill, or impeded by other exercises, or if he cannot communicate so many people, and there is no other priest who would wish or could conveniently accomplish this.' Th. Mor. disp. 5. de Euch. § 6. quaest. unic. § 3. For example, says Cavalieri, si sacerdos sit occupatus in audiendis confessionibus, 'if the priest is occupied in hearing confessions.' To. 4. decr. 13. c. 4. n. 6."

Lugo, de Sacr. euch. d. 18. n. 27., says: "It is doubted secondly: whether in fact a priest can now commit to a deacon that he minister the Eucharist. The answer is that he can in necessity, which is not restricted to the sole case of giving Viaticum to a dying person, but extends more broadly, as if the priest is impeded and cannot distribute the Eucharist to the people." Cf. also ibid. n. 2. seqq.

St. Alph., l. 6. n. 237. q. 1., says: "There is no doubt that a deacon can minister the Eucharist in necessity... They commonly say that grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister... In extreme necessity, when the priest is absent, the deacon will be able and will be bound to minister Viaticum, even without commission... When the deacon ministers the Eucharist, he ought to be clothed with surplice and transverse stole."

2. "Several times it has been asked of us whether a deacon can lawfully expose the Eucharist, not indeed by serving the priest, which is already known to be lawful, but by himself alone, as principal. This doubt is not read among the Moralists, but there is a very valid reason for resolving that it is not permitted to him to do this, except in the case in which every priest is lacking. For Diaconum enim oportet ministrare ad altare, 'it belongs to the deacon to minister at the altar,' says the Roman Pontifical; and later: Comministri et cooperatores estis Corporis et Sanguinis Domini, 'You are co-ministers and co-operators of the Body and Blood of the Lord.' Therefore, when priests are present, it belongs to them to act as principals, and to the deacons to assist them and to perform the part of co-ministers and co-operators. But in the absence of priests, they can indeed supply, and expose the Venerable Sacrament with their express or tacit commission. Thus, both when they expose it and when they administer it in communion, they ought to wear the stole hanging from the left shoulder and bound under the right. When communion is finished, they cannot give the usual blessing to the people, as the doctors warn; and if, when a priest is lacking, they make the exposition, they will not be able to bless the people with the Sacrament." Pavone, Spicilegio, diss. 9. c. 1. n. 209.

But the following Decision of S. R. C. is present:

"Can a deacon who, by mandate of his vicar, carries sacred Viaticum to the sick, make sprinklings of holy water, say Misereatur, Indulgentiam, sign the sick person or himself, say Dominus vobiscum with the prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Most Holy Sacrament?

R. If a presbyter is lacking, and with the concurrent license of the apostolic vicar, affirmatively in all." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1853. n. 3074.

3. "Can a bishop by his own right grant the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament: 1. In churches or public chapels which do not enjoy a parochial title, even if they serve the utilities of the parish; 2. In public chapels of pious Communities, that is, those whose door opens onto a public street, or into an area communicating with a public street, and which are opened to all inhabitants; 3. In chapels or interior oratories of pious Communities, when they do not have a public chapel or oratory in the sense explained, as, for example, in seminaries.

R. An indult from the Holy See must be implored as regards all the requests." S. R. C. 8 March 1879. n. 3484., I. M. 549.

4. Sebastian, a parish priest, denies the Eucharist to all whom he himself judges to be of rather rude understanding. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively, "unless they are altogether incapable of this mystery." Clement IX, C. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669. But they will be capable where they discern spiritual food from bodily food. And this has place even if it is a question of ministering Viaticum, as is drawn from the following Decision of S. I. C.

"Whether Viaticum is to be administered to those neophytes who, in the article of death, having been baptized by Christians, are ignorant.

R. Viaticum is not to be administered to these neophytes unless they at least discern spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host." S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

5. Robertinus, a confessor, very rarely permits communion to his penitents outside Easter time; because, he says, penitents very rarely have that necessary preparation or devotion by which one ought to approach sacred communion. But he permits frequent communion to scarcely anyone, since there is scarcely anyone who is free not only from mortal sins, but even from venial sins.

Quaer. What is to be said about Robertinus's manner of acting?

R. Robertinus's manner of acting is altogether to be disapproved. The necessary preparation by which one can approach sacred communion is indeed that, and no other, concerning which the Apostle says: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice; for he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself.

The Council of Trent, sess. 13. cap. 7., says concerning this necessary preparation of the soul: Wherefore, to one wishing to communicate, that precept, namely of the Apostle, must be recalled: But let a man prove himself. But ecclesiastical custom declares that this proof is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without sacramental confession having first been made. But in cap. 8 immediately following, it exhorts the faithful to receive that supersubstantial bread frequently. And finally, sess. 22, de Sacr. missae, cap. 6, it speaks thus: The holy Synod would indeed desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by should communicate, not only by spiritual affection, but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist.

Therefore, if from these judgments of the Tridentine Fathers taken together we search out their mind thoroughly, we shall certainly have this as explored: that those indeed are to be removed altogether from the Eucharistic table who, oppressed by consciousness of mortal sin, are judged unworthy of so great and so singular a gift of God. Wherefore, if from indications of sorrow and from amendment of new life the confessor does not doubt that sacramental absolution can be imparted to his penitents, neither ought he to hesitate that the same are now sufficiently disposed for eating the Lord's bread. Nor indeed can such penitents, thus disposed and prepared, be repelled from sacred communion indiscriminately and without grave cause, namely, if they have been held worthy of the benefit of sacramental absolution. Indiscriminately and without grave cause; for, for those who are accustomed to commit grave sins, and who, since they have contracted disordered habits and are careless of their own salvation, easily slip afterward into graver crimes to be committed, the salutary remedy of medicinal severity can sometimes be applied.

Moreover, from the cited texts of Trent it is clear that the Tridentine Fathers persuade the faithful to frequent use of the Eucharist; indeed, that they desire that in each Mass the faithful standing by become participants from the Eucharistic table. But it would be altogether useless to exhort the faithful to frequent communion; and the daily communion of the same faithful could not only not be desired, but not even hoped for, if those alone were refreshed by the Eucharistic bread who were free from every stain even of lighter fault. Wherefore all those who are not yet free from venial sins are not indiscriminately to be barred from frequent communion.

If confessors diligently weigh these things, they will certainly see that the custom of those is not to be praised who, in order to permit communion to their penitents, demand, because of the dignity of the sacrament of the Eucharist, certain singular and scarcely to be hoped-for dispositions, and far greater ones than those which suffice for obtaining absolution in the sacrament of penance. - And as regards granting frequent communion, certainly greater devotion of the faithful is to be stirred up; they are to be more sharply inflamed to detestation of past crimes; and those inclined to venial sins are to be efficaciously stirred up to detestation also of these; then a certain hunger, as it were, and vehement desire for Eucharistic food is to be stirred up, so that with the greatest reverence and piety they can receive it. But just as the strength of the body is sustained by food itself, so the languor and infirmity of the soul is driven away and strengthened by this spiritual food by which we are fed. Whence Augustine says in Serm. de verb. Apost.: Daily you sin, daily receive. And if anyone attends diligently, he will discover that the opinion of all the Fathers who have written concerning this matter was the same. Catech. Roman. n. 60., Instr. S. C. de P. F. 19 Apr. 1784., Collectan. n. 719., Ferrar. Supp. v. Communio, Gennari Sulla Comun. freq. I. M. 579.

6. Aloysius, a priest, has already for a year been hearing the confessions of Stanislaus, a nine-year-old boy, commendable for keen intelligence and innocence of morals. Now Aloysius, after first obtaining the consent of the parents, leads him, duly imbued with the rudiments of faith and very desirous of receiving the Eucharist, to the parish priest, so that, after prior examination, he may admit him to first communion. Nevertheless the parish priest refuses because Stanislaus has not yet attained the legitimate age. For he has it as a custom not to admit boys to first communion unless they have at least reached twelve years, relying, as he himself says, both on the common practice of the other parish priests and also on the congruity of the matter itself, for which congruity he brings forward a twofold reason: namely, 1. because of the greater reverence for so great a sacrament; then 2. because of the more abundant fruit of the one receiving. But Aloysius, making little of the reasons brought forward by the parish priest, with the precept of Easter communion urging, administers the Eucharist to Stanislaus on Easter day itself. When the parish priest learns this, he has recourse to the bishop against Aloysius, as though Aloysius had usurped the privative right of parish priests. But the bishop, having been made more certain about the whole matter, proposes the case to be resolved by his vicar general.

Quaer. 1. What discretion is to be required in the present matter; and when do boys have this discretion? - 2. Whether admitting boys to first communion belongs exclusively to the parish priest? - 3. What is to be said of the Case?

R. To the first. The discretion required in the present matter is described thus in the Roman Catechism 57: namely, that the faithful "discern table from table, this sacred table from other profane tables, this heavenly bread from common bread. And this happens when we believe with certainty that the true Body and Blood of the Lord is present, whom the Angels adore in heaven, at whose nod the pillars of heaven tremble and fear, of whose glory heaven and earth are full. This, namely, is to discern the Body of the Lord, which the Apostle admonished." And the same Roman Catechism n. 62 says that it is not fitting to minister the Eucharist to boys not yet using reason, and it adds this reason: "For these neither know how to discern the sacred Eucharist from common and profane bread, nor can they bring piety of soul and religion to receiving it. And this also seems most alien from the institution of Christ the Lord. For he says, Take and eat; but it is sufficiently clear that infants are not suited to receive and eat." And the doctrine of the Sacred Congregations is the same; they require discretion by which one discerns spiritual food from bodily food, by knowing and believing in the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacred Host. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 568.

Moreover, boys do not have this discretion immediately when they obtain the use of reason; for then they have the first discretion of good and evil, but they certainly do not have this more perfect discretion unless they first have obtained a more perfect use of reason and have been duly instructed in the matters of faith. When precisely, then, do they have this discretion? From the more common opinion of the doctors and from the general rule, boys are not obliged to communion before the ninth or tenth year of age; but beyond the twelfth year communion is not to be deferred for them. I. M. 560. Wherefore at this age, from the general rule, boys conveniently instructed certainly have the discretion required for communion. But this general rule certainly does not prevent boys in particular cases, by reason of a precocious development of the use of reason, and of better and more accurate instruction, from having, even before this age, sufficient discretion for receiving communion. And this age, as is clear, is varied in the aforesaid particular cases, according to the various circumstances.

To the second. In the first communion of boys, two things can be considered. The first is the communion itself; the other is that external ceremony which is customarily used in the first communion of boys. As regards the communion itself, two things can be attended to in it: one is admission to first communion, the other the place of first communion. Although admission to first communion can, in particular cases, pertain also to the parish priest, it certainly does not belong exclusively to the parish priest, nor does it belong to the parish priest per se and principally. For admission to first communion belongs per se to him to whom it belongs to judge concerning the sufficient instruction, and concerning the sufficient disposition of soul, of the boy for receiving first communion. And this judgment belongs per se and principally to the parents, to whom the education and due instruction of the boy belongs by force of paternal authority, and to the confessor, before whom the boy confesses his sins. And thus the judgment of Easter communion itself, whether someone ought to receive it or ought for a time to abstain from reception of this kind, belongs, from Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus, to one's own priest, that is, to the confessor. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 6. seqq., I. M. 560.

But as regards the place, no place is prescribed by common Law for first communion. A place in communion is not found determined in the Law except only for Easter communion. Benedict XIV, Inst. 18. n. 7. seqq. Therefore, if boys make first communion during Easter time and so that they may satisfy the Easter precept, then certainly, speaking per se, that communion seems to be received in the parish church.

As regards the exterior ceremony of first communion and its solemn form, this indeed belongs to the parish priest by right and obligation together, because of the good of the parish itself, which he is bound to promote; but it is established by no general law that this exterior ceremony and solemn form belongs exclusively to the parish priest. Indeed, the contrary is positively established from the Declarations of the Sacred Congregations, since a public ceremony of this kind is asserted to be of exclusively parochial right only in those places where legitimate prescription and custom vindicates this for itself. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 560. And, if it does not belong to the parish priest by exclusive right to admit boys to first communion, and first communion is not per se to be received in the parish church, how can the exterior ceremony and solemnity, which accompanies the first communion of boys, belong to the parish priest by exclusive right?

To the third. The custom of the parish priest of not admitting to first communion unless the boys are twelve years old cannot be approved, and consequently, speaking per se, the common practice of the other parish priests cannot be approved. For if boys of this kind are duly disposed, already before this age, from the Lateran Council, C. Omnis utriusque sexus, they can and ought to approach the sacred synaxis; and if they are duly disposed, as is supposed, they will receive it with due reverence and with fitting fruit. From this it appears that the practice of the other parish priests invoked by the parish priest, and the twofold reason of congruity which he brings forward, have altogether no force.

But as regards Aloysius, in that he himself, Stanislaus's confessor, after first obtaining the parents' consent, admitted Stanislaus to first communion, he acted altogether rightly, following in this matter the doctrine of the Roman Catechism n. 63. But in that he himself privately gave communion to Stanislaus during Easter time, he also does not seem to be blameworthy; but then Stanislaus is bound to receive communion again in the parish church, since he is now bound by the precept of Easter communion in his own parish. Finally, because Aloysius gave communion to Stanislaus on Easter day itself, generally speaking, he seems blameworthy; since on Easter day it is commonly prohibited to distribute communion to the people in other churches besides parochial ones. I. M. 528. But in the Case there can be no difficulty concerning the exterior ceremony and solemn form; for this regards the first communion of several boys together. M. E. v. 10. p. 2. p. 22.

7. Leonard, a presbyter, returning from a journey with other friends, very fatigued, sits down at table at half past the eleventh hour of the night, so that he may be briefly refreshed. But while talking and eating with his friends, time flows by as quickly as possible, so that, astonished, he notices while drinking that midnight has already passed. Nevertheless, since on the following feast day he cannot omit Mass without offense to the people, he celebrates Mass without scruple.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. "Leonard, who cannot omit Mass except with scandal or offense of the people, can probably celebrate, because it is better to avoid the greater evil, or scandal of the people; for it is a lesser evil to celebrate Mass than for the whole people to be offended with scandal, and to be deprived of Mass on such a day. Thus grave theologians against others. See La-Croix n. 582." Thus Fr. Gury 294. 299. 300., I. M. 595.

Nevertheless, the following Decision of the Holy Office, 2 Dec. 1874, must be attended to: "Whether, by reason of scandal or wonder, the second Mass after the first can ever be celebrated when the fast has already been broken? - R. Negatively." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 793., E. M. 595.

8. Ferdinand, a missionary, doubts whether he can minister sacred communion by way of Viaticum to Francis when he is not fasting, concerning whose illness it is doubted whether it is mortal or not.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Ferdinand can minister Viaticum; for while that doubt stands, although Francis is not in the article of death, nevertheless he is in danger of death. For there is danger of death when there is a probable doubt, and death is often accustomed to happen in such a Case. But if the doubt is merely negative, because namely neither could a physician be questioned about the gravity of the disease, nor is the sick man himself or the missionary capable of forming a judgment, then Viaticum is still to be administered, and one must not proceed scrupulously in this matter, since in the Council of Constance, sess. 13, the sick are simply excepted from the law of fasting. St. Alph. l. 6. n. 285. dub. 3. in fine., I. M. 596. Indeed, often it cannot be established whether the disease is truly lethal or not; and then the Church, a pious mother, is rightly presumed to wish in such a doubt to favor the sick person, especially since daily experience establishes that many sick persons, beyond everyone's expectation, die without Viaticum. This has force especially when the sick person is far distant from the church, or when, in mission places, the missionary cannot return again to the sick person, because then he is exposed to the greater danger of dying without being refreshed by the sacraments. G. 306., Lig. H. A. 46.

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?

176. • 1º Regulars can celebrate Mass one hour before dawn, that is, three hours before sunrise, but only in their own Churches, in which secular Priests also can do this from the same privilege, Gregory XIII; but after midday only one hour. For although from the privilege conceded by Eugene IV they formerly could celebrate even three hours after midday had elapsed, yet that privilege was revoked by St. Pius V.

2º They can administer the Eucharist in their Churches to all the faithful, except on the day of Easter ¹¹.

¹¹ ** At Rome Thursday in the Lord's Supper is also excepted.

3º They can administer paschal Communion, Extreme Unction, and Viaticum to their subjects, novices, and familiars ¹². - St. Ligorius, nn. 121, 122. - Nevertheless secular Congregations, excluding a special Apostolic Indult, such as for example was recently conceded to the Sulpicians, Marists, and Oratorians.

¹² ** Understand familiars here as those who are perpetual table companions and live within the cloister. And hence the reason why Regulars can administer to them the sacraments about which there is speech. For as was said above, n. 173, by law these are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop, and therefore of the pastor.

1º They can dispense, with cause, in ecclesiastical laws for their own subjects, as Bishops can, for example concerning the divine Office, fasting, abstinence, etc.; because they have quasi-episcopal jurisdiction.

2º Regular Superiors can permit subjects who are simply tonsured to preach in Churches (Gregory XIII).

3º Mendicant religious generally communicate among themselves ¹³ in their privileges, both as to persons and as to places. But they do not communicate them when they are wholly special, or odious, or contrary to their own state, so that they prejudice the common good or the observance of Religion.

¹³ ** Indeed Mendicants also participate in the privileges of Orders that are not Mendicant.

But it must be carefully observed that these privileges conceded to Religious families by Canon Law, or by the Holy See, belong only to Superiors, who communicate them to subjects according to their wisdom; and furthermore that the same are not extended to Orders not strictly religious, which are called secular Congregations ¹⁴.

¹⁴ ** Understand: unless by a special indult of the Apostolic See this also has been conceded to them.

346. The Eucharist has not only the character of a Sacrament, but also of a Sacrifice. Concerning this matter the Roman Catechism, On the Eucharist, n. 71: But these two characters differ very greatly from one another. For the Sacrament is perfected by consecration; but the whole force of Sacrifice is in this, that it be offered. Wherefore, while the sacred Host is contained in the pyx or carried to the sick, it has the character of a Sacrament, not of a Sacrifice.

Then also, insofar as it is a Sacrament, it brings to those who receive the divine Host a cause of merit and all those benefits which were commemorated above. But insofar as it is a Sacrifice, it contains not only the efficacy of meriting, but also of making satisfaction; for as Christ the Lord in His Passion merited and made satisfaction for us, so those who offer this Sacrifice, whereby they communicate with us, merit the fruits of the Lord's Passion and make satisfaction.

The Eucharist, as a Sacrifice, is called Mass from the verb to send, because Christ there is the Victim sent by God; or, according to others, because at the end of the Sacrifice the people are dismissed, the Priest or Deacon saying: Go, the Mass is ended.

We must treat: 1. of the nature and efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass; 2. of the application of the Sacrifice of the Mass; 3. of the obligation of celebrating Mass; 4. of the time and place of celebration; 5. of the manner of celebrating.

Sacrifice taken generally is thus commonly defined: An external oblation of a sensible thing, with its destruction or alteration, made to God alone through a lawful Minister in protestation of His supreme dominion ¹.

¹ Perhaps not the generic notion of sacrifice, but the special definition of a holocaust is handed down in these words. But these things pertain better to Scholastic Theology.

347. Principles. - I. The Mass is the true Sacrifice of the New Law. For it is an oblation instituted by Christ, in which Christ Himself is mystically slain and is offered as a victim to God the Father in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. This is also established from the definition of the Church in the Council of Trent, sess. 22, Can. 1: If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper Sacrifice is not offered to God, or that what is offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

II. The Sacrifice of the Mass perfectly contains the characters of all the sacrifices of the Old Law. For it is: 1. Latreutic, insofar as it is offered especially to God in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion. 2. Eucharistic, insofar as it is offered to God in thanksgiving for benefits conferred by Him. 3. Propitiatory and satisfactory, or expiatory, insofar as it is offered to God for obtaining both pardon of sins and remission of the punishment due to them. 4. Finally, impetratory, insofar as it is offered to God for obtaining benefits from Him through the merits of Christ. This is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, Can. 3.

348. III. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is assuredly the same as the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, not only because the same victim is offered, but also because the same formal character of Sacrifice is present, namely, through the declaration of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Therefore, the Sacrifice of the Altar differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross not essentially, but only accidentally, namely, as regards the manner of offering. 1. For in the Sacrifice of the Cross a real death took place; but in this one only a mystical death. 2. The Redeemer offered the former by Himself upon the altar of the Cross; but He offers the latter through the ministry of priests. 3. The former was meritorious, because in it the price of our redemption was paid; but through the latter the merits of Christ are applied.

349. Questions. - QUESTION 1. In what does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist? ²

² These matters contribute little to practice, except perhaps where the precept of hearing Mass is in question. But since scarcely more than probable opinions are adduced concerning them, hardly anything can be deduced from them even as regards that precept.

Reply. It is disputed. More probably, it consists in the consecration alone, because in the consecration alone are found all the things required to constitute a Sacrifice, namely, an oblation and the mystical destruction or immolation of the victim. - Thus more commonly. Nevertheless, not a few hold that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the consecration and partly in the consumption, because in the consecration the victim is set forth, and in the consumption it is consumed. St. Lig., no. 305, regarded this opinion as the more probable.

QUESTION 2. For whom can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered?

Reply 1. It is certain that this Sacrifice can be offered for all the faithful, living and dead, and also for sinners who are not excommunicated, but only as regards the fruit of impetration ³. This is established from the Council of Trent. the gift of penance, and consequently forgives even great crimes and sins. It is manifest, however, that the Sacrifice is offered for sinners in order that this fruit may be received.

³ Here perhaps the fruit of impetration is confused with the fruit of propitiation, which consists in this: that God, appeased by the Sacrifice, grants grace and

Reply 2. More probably, it is lawful to celebrate Mass even for tolerated excommunicates, because although the Church grants them nothing, nevertheless the faithful are not prohibited from communicating with them even in divine things, as will be stated in the Treatise on Censures. The same is also to be held concerning infidels ⁴. - St. Lig., no. 309.

⁴ Benedict XIV (Const. In Superiori, March 8, 1755, sec. 27), speaking of the discipline of the Orientals, who make commemoration of the king in the sacred liturgy even though he is an infidel, has the following: If anyone should ask by what reasoning this can be tolerated, when it is certainly established that those kings for whom they pray and of whom they make commemoration in the liturgy are infidels, the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine would answer him (as in fact he did answer...) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the matter, as the theologians say, to pray in the Mass even for infidels, since the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered for all. And indeed St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 12, q. 2, art. 2, q. 2, ad 4, teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in the book On the Origin of the Soul that the Sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, nevertheless this opinion must be understood so as to include all those who either already are members of Christ or can become such. Therefore the same Cardinal adds that the whole matter must be measured according to the prohibition of the Church: it is certain from the nature of the matter, if there is no prohibition of the Church, that it is lawful to offer for men of this kind; he is speaking of infidels. And since a prohibition of this kind exists with regard to excommunicates, and thus with regard to heretics and schismatics, but not with regard to infidels, who are not bound by excommunication, he says that this is sufficient for commemoration of them to be made in the Mass, and even for the Sacrifice to be offered for them, according to the manifest tradition on this matter and the Apostolic Constitution. But someone will ask whether, if a king is an infidel, as in Greece, where the Turk rules, and in India and Japan and among the Chinese, where pagans reign, it is lawful for priests who are there expressly to offer for the king. I answer: I think it is lawful, provided that that king is not excommunicated, as heretical kings are, but is a pagan or heathen. For this tradition, and indeed the Constitution, is Apostolic, as we showed a little above. Nor, so far as I know, does any manifest prohibition of the Church exist. To these considerations the text of Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, ch. 2, which occurs as follows, may usefully be added: We sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor, but to our God and his, and as God has commanded, with pure prayer; for God, the Creator of the universe, has no need of anyone's honor or blood. But leaving assertions of this kind in their probability, etc. Thus far Benedict XIV.

Reply 3. It is not lawful to offer the Sacrifice in the name of the Church for excommunicates who are to be avoided, because this is specially prohibited by Canon Law, c. 2, De sententia excommunicationis. A priest may, however, lawfully offer Mass for them in his own name. - St. Lig., no. 308. - Lacroix, no. 33. - Suarez, etc.

350. QUESTION 3. How many kinds of fruit are there from the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Reply. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold head, namely, on the part of the offerer and on the part of the victim.

I. On the part of the offerer. Since there is a twofold offerer, namely, Christ and the priest, there is therefore a twofold kind of fruit of the Mass on the part of the offerer. The first proceeds from Christ offering, and is called ex opere operato, because it is received in consideration of the merits of Christ and His promise.

The other proceeds from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in consideration of the merit and devotion of the celebrating priest, and is called the fruit ex opere operantis. Hence it follows that the Sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, does not profit more than if it were offered by an unworthy minister; because the Sacrifice, considered in this way, is the work of Christ, and its fruit flows solely from the merits of Christ. Therefore, in this sense it can rightly be said that the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as the Mass of a good priest. But the contrary must be said if the merit ex opere operantis is considered; for the worthier the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed, the greater the fruit of the Mass becomes.

351. II. On the part of the victim. Under this head a threefold fruit of the Sacrifice is distinguished, namely, general, special, and most special.

1. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the Sacrifice insofar as it is a work performed by the priest as he acts in the name of the whole Church. And all the faithful, although the priest does not think of them, receive this fruit; but it is granted to them only by way of impetration ⁵, and not, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of Sacrifices that are offered daily, every just person, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of an immense punishment, which appears incredible. Those who are present at the Sacrifice, and a fortiori those who cooperate in it, for example, those serving the priest, etc., share in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special manner. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is more abundant in proportion as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating are greater. Hence, although several persons hear Mass or serve at it, each will receive the whole fruit proportioned to his devotion, just as if he alone were hearing or serving at it.

⁵ Here also understand impetration in such a way that it includes propitiation as well.

2. The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the Sacrifice. They share ex opere operato in the Sacrifice insofar as it is impetratory and propitiatory; and indeed also, provided that nothing prevents it, insofar as it is satisfactory.

3. The most special fruit is that which comes to the offering priest insofar as he offers as a private person. For if every cooperator receives from the Sacrifice a fruit altogether special to himself, much more ought the priest who sacrifices to receive this fruit. Whether the priest can apply this fruit to others, however, is uncertain ⁶. - St. Lig., no. 312.

⁶ This, however, is certain: the priest cannot apply this most special fruit to another in such a way that he receives another stipend on that account; yet understand this unless it is done with the consent of the one giving the other stipend.

352. QUESTION 4. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Reply 1. It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ Himself in this Sacrifice is at once the victim and the principal offerer. Therefore, the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price made by Christ as the primary offerer, Who has infinite merit.

Reply 2. It cannot be infinite with regard to its application made to individual men, or with regard to its effect or fruit. The reason is that creatures are not capable of receiving an infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or less according as the disposition or capacity of the one to whom it is applied is greater or less.

It is disputed, however, whether the application of the fruit of the Sacrifice is restricted to a certain degree or is made without a determinate limit according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered.

The first and much more probable opinion contends that the application is made without a determinate limit according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered. And this is the opinion most commonly received today, says St. Lig., no. 312. The reason is that the value of the Sacrifice is infinite in itself; hence, of itself, it can be applied to innumerable men without being capable of exhaustion. Therefore, if the Sacrifice is offered for one hundred or one thousand persons, each one will receive as much fruit as the single person would receive for whom alone it was offered ⁷. The second opinion holds that the fruit of the Mass is restricted to a certain degree. The reason adduced is that, although the Mass in itself and with regard to sufficiency is of infinite value, nevertheless its effect is limited and restricted to a certain quantity by the will of Christ, Who instituted this Sacrifice so that ex opere operato it would produce a certain effect, or a certain degree of satisfaction, independently of the disposition of men. Nevertheless, the patrons of this opinion concede that this degree of fruit can be increased ex opere operantis, that is, according to the greater devotion of the offering priest and of the person for whom it is offered ⁸. For the rest, they assert entirely without grounds that a restriction of this kind was made by Christ.

⁷ Although, according to this most common opinion of the more recent authors, a priest can apply one and the same Sacrifice for several persons, nevertheless it is not lawful for him to receive several stipends. For this has been prohibited by decrees of the Church; and St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, no. 312) adds the reason: because the stipend is given for the support of the minister; therefore, as often as his support is furnished to the minister, the title for receiving another stipend is lacking. Indeed (as the same St. Alphonsus rightly warns), since the opposite opinion is not altogether lacking in at least some extrinsic probability, a priest who receives a stipend from one person ought not to apply the same Sacrifice for others except under the condition, namely, that nothing be withdrawn from the one furnishing the stipend. Nevertheless, the addition of this condition, which St. Alphonsus suggests for the sake of greater security, can and ought by no means to prevent the priest from also applying the same Sacrifice for others, or even from being able, through the application of the same Sacrifice, to satisfy some obligation to another which he contracted otherwise than by an accepted stipend, and therefore under a title other than that of justice. On this matter Cardinal de Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 19, no. 249) has the following: It does not appear why a priest would not satisfy his debt by conforming himself to that opinion which the adversaries admit to be probable; just as one who has promised a fast would satisfy by fasting in this or that manner, even if there were a question, under a probable opinion, whether that was a fast, provided nevertheless that it was probable that it was a fast. Therefore, one who has promised (from liberality) to apply a Mass for someone will satisfy by applying it with a probable application. For since elsewhere (vol. 1, no. 80), according to the most common opinion of the Doctors, it was established that one who has probably satisfied an obligation that is not from justice requiring equality is thereby freed from the obligation, so that he is bound to nothing further; and since the opinion that the same Sacrifice avails equally for others besides the one offering the stipend is now much more probable and most commonly received, the reason is evident why Cardinal de Lugo said that an obligation of Sacrifice arising under a title other than that of justice, for example, from a gratuitous and liberal promise, and furthermore from a debt of mere fidelity, can be satisfied in this manner. See also the following note.

⁸ Moreover, these Doctors also concede that the diverse fruits of the Sacrifice, namely, the latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and satisfactory fruits, can validly be divided by the celebrant, or be applied to diverse persons. And they teach that this can even be done lawfully in a free Mass, that is, one which the celebrant is bound to offer for no one in particular.

But in a Mass that is owed solely from fidelity and a liberal promise, they consider that division altogether lawful if the Sacrifice of the Mass was liberally promised to diverse persons for diverse ends. The reason is that a liberal promise is to be interpreted so that it is as little burdensome as possible to the one promising, as is said in L. 99, Quidquid adstringendae, ff., De verborum obligationibus.

Finally, in a Mass owed solely from obedience, whether by command of a Superior or by a statute of an Order, it is lawful to divide the fruits that do not tend directly to the prescribed end. The reason is that, according to the common opinion of the Doctors from Cap. Intelligentia, De verborum significatione, the obligation of a law or precept is not to be extended beyond the end of the law. Hence, when a Superior or the statute of an Order prescribes a Mass precisely in honor of the Most Holy Trinity, or of some Saint, or in thanksgiving, the satisfactory fruit, and in the last case also the impetratory fruit, can be freely applied by the priest for another, as Gobat and Sporer, with others, teach on the authority of St. Francis Borgia, who, when he was Superior General of the Society of Jesus, wrote to his subjects in the year 1564 in these words: When Superiors enjoin Masses for purposes other than for the dead, it is clear that the application for freeing a soul remains free to the priest.

353. QUESTION 5. Does the Mass benefit the dead by an infallible promise of Christ?

Reply. Affirmatively. For the Mass is profitably offered for the dead, as is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, ch. 2 and Can. 3. Moreover, this cannot be done except by the promise of Christ, which is declared in Matt. 26:28: This is My Blood... which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. This is also established from the words of the form in the conferral of Orders: Receive the power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen. Nevertheless, temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a fixed law, but it profits them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall please God to accept it. - See Perrone, vol. 8, no. 282.

QUESTION 6. Does a Requiem Mass benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

Reply. Negatively, as regards the substance, or on the part of the Sacrifice; but affirmatively as regards the accidental elements, or on the part of the prayers, the deficiency of which devotion can supply. - St. Lig., no. 309, after St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 71, art. 9. It must be noted here that a Requiem Mass and a Mass in black vestments can be applied for a living person, provided that the one who gave the alms has not expressly declared the contrary. - S. C. of Rites, Nov. 29, 1856.

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.

1. SACRIFICE AS A RELIGIOUS ACT.—Sacrifice (oblatio, sacrificium) is an element of natural religion that is as old as humanity itself. It is an essential part of divine worship and, together with prayer and adoration, constitutes the most ancient and universal form of latria.

Broadly speaking, a sacrifice is a religious act by which we segregate a material gift from the rest of our possessions and alter it for the purpose of relinquishing its use and returning it to God.

Every sacrifice is inspired by the conviction that we are indebted to God for whatever we are and possess and by the intention of showing Him the homage and reverence due Him.¹

¹ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art. 1: “Natural reason dictates to man that he should be subject to some superior because of the defects which he feels in himself, in which he needs to be assisted and directed by some superior; and whatever that may be, this is what among all is called God. Just as in natural things inferiors are naturally subject to superiors, so also natural reason dictates to man, according to his natural inclination, that he should exhibit sub- jection and honor, according to his manner, to that which is above man. Now it is a manner suited to man that he use sensible signs to express certain things, because he receives knowledge from sensible things. And therefore it proceeds from natural reason that man should use certain sensible things, offering them to God as a sign of due subjection and honor, after the likeness of those who offer certain things to their lords in acknowledgment of dominion. But this belongs to the nature of sacrifice. And therefore the offering of sacrifice belongs to the natural law.”

Sacrifices therefore, can be offered only to God, to whom man owes his being and in whom he has his last end.²

² St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. X, c. 4: “Of those things which belong to the service of religion by which God is worshipped, there is surely no man who would dare to say that sacrifice is owed to any but God.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 281).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art. 2: “The offering of sacrifice is made to signify something. Now the sacrifice offered outwardly signifies the inward spiritual sacrifice by which the soul offers itself to God (Ps. L, 19), because outward acts of religion are ordered to inward acts. But the soul offers itself to God in sacrifice as to the principle of its creation and as to the end of its beatification.... And therefore, just as we owe the offering of spiritual sacrifice to the supreme God alone, so also to Him alone ought we to offer outward sacrifices.” Cfr. 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 3.

The primary and essential object of sacrifice is the acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion over His creatures. Since the Fall there is also a secondary object, namely, to appease the divine wrath. This secondary object, though in itself purely accidental, has become inseparable from the notion of sacrifice in consequence of the sin of our first parents.³

³ Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, p. 287.

“Man has need of sacrifice for three reasons,” says St. Thomas. “First, to obtain forgiveness of his sins, which separate him from God.... Secondly, in order that he may persevere in the state of grace by always adhering to God.... Thirdly, that his soul may be perfectly united with God.”⁴

⁴ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2: “Man has need of sacrifice for three reasons: first, to obtain remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God.... Secondly, that man may be preserved in the state of grace, always adhering to God.... Thirdly, for this, that the spirit of man may be perfectly united with God.”

That the human race was always conscious of being in a state of grievous sin, appears from the fact that precious objects, such as the blood of beasts, and even of men, were offered as sacrifices to God at a very early date. Human sacrifices were no doubt a terrible aberration, but they clearly indicate that even before Christ appeared on earth, man felt that he could atone for his guilt only by sacrificing himself or his fellowmen.⁵

⁵ A. Stöckl, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen und seiner Geschichte, Mayence 1861; A. H. H. Kamphausen, Das Verhältnis des Menschenopfers zur israelitischen Religion, Leipsic 1896; E. Mader, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer, Freiburg 1909.

The acknowledgment of God’s supreme dominion over His creatures culminates in adoration; the effort to appease His wrath centres in contrite expiation, for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness of sin. Hence the distinction between sacrifices of praise and sacrifices of propitiation. And since man is indebted for many benefits to God, sacrifices have the additional purpose of thanksgiving and petition.

The imperfect sacrifices of the Old Testament were merely types foreshadowing the one perfect sacrifice of the New Dispensation, which was offered by Jesus Christ upon the Cross. “Being in themselves imperfect and inefficacious,” says Pohle, “the sacrifices of the Levites could effect ‘a legal cleansing of the flesh,’ but no remis- sion of sins. Their very insufficiency made them prophetic types of the perfect sacrifice of the New Law. If sins were forgiven in the Old Testament, it was not by the blood of goats or calves, but by the blood of the promised Redeemer. Hence the variety of the Levitic sacrifices and their incessant repetition. They were mere types, expressing the constant need of propitiation through the bloody sacrifice of the Cross.”⁶

⁶ Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 291 sq.

Hence sacrifice may be adequately defined as the external offering of a sensible gift, which is destroyed, or at least submitted to an appropriate transformation, by an authorized minister, in recognition of God’s supreme dominion and in order to appease His anger.⁷

⁷ Op. cit., p. 286.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art. 3, ad 2: “Man’s good is threefold. The first is the good of the soul, which is offered to God in a certain interior sacrifice through devotion and prayer and other interior acts of this kind, and this is the principal sacrifice. The second is the good of the body, which in a certain way is offered to God through martyrdom and abstinence or continence. The third is the good of external things, concerning which a sacrifice is offered to God, directly indeed when we immediately offer our possessions to God, but mediately when we communicate them to our neighbors for God’s sake.”—Ibid., ad 3: “Sacrifices are properly so called when something is done to things offered to God, as animals were killed and burned, and bread is broken and eaten and blessed. And the name itself signifies this, for sacrifice is so called from the fact that man makes something sacred. But an oblation is directly so called when something is offered to God, even if nothing is done to it, as coins or loaves are said to be offered on the altar, concerning which nothing is done. Hence every sacrifice is an oblation, but the converse is not true.”—Cfr. qu. 86, art. 1; 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 3; 3a, qu. 22, art. 2; qu. 48, art. 3, where St. Thomas says: “Sacrifice is properly said of something done in the honor properly due to God in order to appease Him.”

There is but one such sacrifice under the New Dispensation, namely, the perfect sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ. “By one oblation he hath per- fected for ever them that are sanctified.”⁸

⁸ Heb. X, 14.—St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. XVIII, c. 20, n. 2: “For by all the sacrifices and oblations [of the Old Testament] His [Christ’s] body is offered and is ministered to the participants.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 556).

“Christ,” says St. Thomas, “in His human capacity, as man, was not only a priest, but also a perfect gift or victim, i. e., a sacrificial gift for sin, a peace offering, and a burnt offering.”⁹

⁹ Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2: “Christ Himself, inasmuch as He was man, was not only a priest, but also a perfect victim, being at once a victim for sin, a peace offering, and a holocaust.”

His whole life was a continuous sacrifice of humiliation and self-abasement (exinanitio),¹⁰ which reached its climax when He died on the Cross.¹¹ It is by this supreme act that He redeemed the human race from sin.

¹⁰ Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 95 sqq.

¹¹ Phil. II, 8; Col. II, 14; Heb. X, 5–10.

This sacrifice is continued in the Mass, which is intrinsically and essentially a representation and commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,¹² the pivot and centre of Catholic worship, and the only liturgical act in which every member of the Church is in duty bound to participate at regular intervals.

¹² Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 332 sqq.—Conc. Lateran. IV, c. 1: “In which [the Church] the same One is both priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 430).—Conc. Trident., Sess. 22, c. 1, can. 1–4.—N. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 4th ed., St. Louis 1914.—J. Grimault, La Doctrine de la Sainte Messe, Paris 1905.—For additional literature on the Mass see Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 273 sq.

Sacred Scripture censures the heathen, not because they offered sacrifices, but because they sacrificed to idols instead of to the one true God, and says their sacrifices were rejected because they were inspired by a wrong intention and therefore could not be pleasing to God. To perform acts of external worship without due regard to the moral law of nature, is not to honor God, but to dishonor Him.¹³

¹³ 1 Kings XV, 22; Ps. XXXIX, 7; L, 18; Os. VI, 6; Am. V, 21–27; Mich. VI, 6 sqq.; Is. I, 10–17; Matt. IX, 13; 1 Cor. X, 19 sq.; Heb. X, 5.—M. Wiener, Die Anschauungen der Propheten von der Sittlichkeit, Berlin 1909.

2. THE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SACRIFICE.—Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for men, and spiritual self-immolation is the essence and climax of every Christian’s life. External gifts, even though they consist of the very life-blood of the giver, are worthless if unaccompanied by interior contrition and penitence. To participate in the benefits of the Redemption, the individual must add to the objective sacrifice offered once for all by Jesus Christ on the Cross, a subjective and interior sacrifice, by entering into and adopting as his own the intention and purpose for which our Lord laid down His life.¹⁴

¹⁴ Gen. IV, 4; 1 Cor. XI, 26; XIII, 1–8.

This interior union with the sacrificial intention of Christ may manifest itself in various external acts, which are called sacrifices in a figurative sense, but partake of the true sacrificial character only in so far as they are consciously referred to the Sacrifice of the Cross.

In this sense, sacrifice consists in humbly sub- mitting to the will of God and patiently accepting the sufferings and tribulations of everyday life, which are not inappropriately called the “daily cross” of the Christian believer.

If one has this disposition, it is not sinful for him to wish conditionally that a certain thing may or may not happen in some particular case,¹⁵ and the expressions of pain or impatience that sometimes escape the lips of even pious persons, when sorely tried, are signs of weakness rather than sins. Resignation to God’s will is a duty, and to refuse it deliberately, or wilfully to entertain feelings of positive repugnance, is a mortal sin.

¹⁵ Matt. XVI, 24; XXVI, 38 sq.; Luke XXIV, 27; Heb. XII, 1 sq.

The sacrificial intention which every Christian must harbor in his soul manifests itself, secondly, in voluntary works of self-denial and humiliation, submission to the will of God, abstention from licit pleasures, in various works of mercy, and, generally, in doing good. These are all sacrifices acceptable to God, provided they come from a pure, or at least from a contrite heart, and are inspired by charity for one’s fellowmen.

One of the noblest sacrifices a man can offer to God is a meek and grateful disposition even in adversity. The verbal manifestation of this disposition has fittingly been called the language of the Saints and it ought to be in the mouth of every Christian without exception.¹⁶

¹⁶ Tob. II, 10, 14; Matt. V, 23 sqq.; Eph. IV, 2; V, 20; Col. III, 15, 17; 1 Thess. V, 18.—St. Jerome, Comment. in Epist. ad Ephes., l. III, c. 5.

The oft-repeated dictum: It is the Mass that matters! was coined by Augustine Birrell, a Baptist. “The Mass,” he says, “is a mystery so tremendous, so profoundly attractive, so intimately associated with the keystone of the Christian faith, so vouched for by the testimony of Saints ... If the Incarnation be indeed the one divine event to which the whole creation moves, the miracle of the altar may well seem its restful shadow cast over a dry and thirsty land, for the help of man who is apt to be discouraged if perpetually told that everything really important and interesting happened once for all, long ago, in a chill, historic past. It is the Mass that matters. It is the Mass that makes the difference, so hard to define—so subtle is it, yet so perceptible—between a Catholic country and a Protestant one, between Dublin and Edinburgh, between Havre and Cromer.”¹⁷

¹⁷ Nineteenth Century, Apr., 1896; quoted by H. T. Henry, Catholic Customs and Symbols, N. Y. 1925, pp. 133 sq.

On the duty of attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, on Sundays and holydays of obligation, see infra, pp. 336 sqq.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85–87.—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Freiburg 1904, pp. 325 sqq.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, Freiburg 1881, pp. 478 sqq.—Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 277 sqq.

— Utility.

Choir of the new Jerusalem, applaud, And marvel what this victim is, Which Melchisedech the priest foresaw, Offering in praise, on the way, While mystically he met Abraham: Christ is figured, who is believed The living bread and fixed on the cross, Who rising again dies no more, Who, assumed, gives life to the mind; And into bread the wood is transformed, While the wood of the cross slays this one.

That excellent Prose of the Breviary of Bourges, which we borrow from the work of R. P. de la Taille, p. 74, wonderfully joins, in one context, the figure, the celebration in the Supper and on the Cross, and the consummation in the heavens of the sacrifice of infinite value by which Christ enriched the economy of the New Law, when through the Holy Spirit, that is, through the eternal power of divinity, he offered himself immaculate to God (Hebrews 9:14; cf. op. cit., p. 76).

But dogmatic theology vindicates to itself the solemn exposition of the mystery of our redemption, nor does it leave to moral theology except humble parts, almost canonical, which contain the disciplinary laws concerning the celebration of Mass and concerning its application. Yet daily use, and difficulties of conscience, which arise in great number, for example by occasion of stipends, sufficiently demonstrate the utility of accurate knowledge.

— Appendix IV belongs to this section. Historical-Liturgical concerning the sacrifice of the Mass. Cf. Appendix IV.

— Mass, more anciently called missio, first designated the dismissal of catechumens before the offertory, and of the faithful after the consummation of the sacrifice. After the former dismissal had been removed by use, it began to designate the whole ceremony whose end it of itself announced.

Therefore it is sometimes taken for the sacrifice itself, and then Mass can be defined: "the sacrificial oblation of the body and blood of Christ" (Mysterium Fidei, p. 319). But more properly it is that sacred ceremony in which the sacrifice of the New Law is offered (Trent, s. 22, can. 1).

While in the sacrament we passively receive the gift of God, in the sacrifice we act, we offer the victim; the sacrament immediately infuses grace into us, while the sacrifice intercedes for us before God. In the sacrament, the effect ex opere operato is owed to God as principal cause, to the sacrament as instrumental cause; in the sacrifice, the effect ex opere operato is had because God, in view of the sacrifice itself as such, with consideration of our devotion omitted, is prepared to concede to us, yet with fitting reason, the goods for obtaining which the sacrifice is offered (Mysterium Fidei, p. 321).

In the eucharistic sacrifice also there can be distinguished sign only, reality and sign, reality only. Sign only is attended to in the species, which constitute a certain apparent sacrifice, not a true one, of bread and wine, designative of the true sacrifice, not an apparent one, concerning the body and blood of Christ. Reality and sign is the true sacrifice itself concerning the body and blood of Christ, designated by the apparent sacrifice of bread and wine. For the species, together with the words, avail to signify the division of body and blood made in the Passion for the redemption of the human race. Therefore in the Mass they represent the past immolation of the Cross, just as in the Supper they pre-signified the imminent immolation of the Cross. But in that very pre-signification consisted the oblation which Christ made, ritual and sensible, of his death; and likewise in the representation of death consists the oblation which we make of Christ, who by his Passion and death was left in the state of a victim consummated forever by heavenly glory. This oblation, from what has been said, is wholly perfected in each consecration; in this, therefore, as the more common opinion holds, the essence of the Mass is to be placed. But Communion is not oblation, but participation of the offered victim. A few have thought that either consecration suffices for the essence of the sacrifice. This opinion is judged improbable by Lehmkuhl, II, 229, but not by Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theolog., IV, 989; and it must be called improbable by all for whom it is certain that the sacrifice of the Mass is essentially representative, and that the oblation of the body and blood of Christ is so true and real that nevertheless it consists in a certain symbol of death, which is called mystical immolation. Finally, reality only is our interior worship signified by the oblation of that divine victim, or our internal immolation.

— The primary and essential end of the Sacrifice, the end of the work, is latreutic: it is offered in recognition of the supreme dominion of God and as sign of our servitude. Wherefore sacrifice also is offered to God alone. But since thanksgiving for benefits received also pertains to the due honor of God, the end of praise and thanksgiving, or the eucharistic end, is closely joined with the former. In our present condition, divine worship also contains the postulation of benefits of every kind. Hence sacrifice becomes impetratory. Finally, from our condition after the fall of Adam, God must be placated, lest the benefits of him, liberal and merciful, be impeded by our sins. Wherefore sacrifice is offered as propitiatory. Propitiation of itself says: a) compensation for a misdeed, by which fault is redeemed and the offended one is rendered as it were unharmed; and b) the punishment of vindicative justice is supplied by which satisfaction is made to him. In the former way the offended one is placated; in the latter, the penal debt is extinguished. Therefore propitiation comprehends two things; but propitiation strictly so called regards laying aside wrath or placation, while extinction of punishment is more properly called satisfaction.

Distinct sacrifices were deputed to these ends in the Old Law, while, from the very law of its institution, the sacrifice of the Mass is at the same time latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and propitiatory (Trent, s. XXII, c. 1, end of c. 2).

Moreover, the propitiatory sacrifice itself is of itself latreutic, eucharistic, and impetratory. Cf. Mysterium Fidei, Elucidation I.

By a certain secondary reason it is also offered, not indeed to the saints, but to God in honor of the saints (Trent, s. 22, c. 3).

The victim of this sacrifice is Christ himself, who because of our conjunction with him has been made our victim, whom we can offer.

— The principal offerer is Christ, at least insofar as he himself offered the sacrifice of redemption and commanded its perpetual renewal, competent power having been given for this end to priests who, by virtue of the Lord's oblation once made, would themselves offer the victim of Christ.

We say at least, because according to the opinion of Suarez (in 3 p., q. 83, art. 1, d. 77, s. I), which very many after him embrace, the priest so "confects in the person of Christ and as his legate representing him" (St. Thomas) that Christ concurs with the individual sacrifices as actual offerer. Yet that opinion, already disapproved by Vasquez (in 3 p., q. 19, a. 4, d. 76, c. 1, n. 6) and then by several others, does not please all even today. Thus it is rejected in the work Mysterium Fidei, Elucidation XXIII, p. 276 ff. Wherefore, that we might omit this controversy, which belongs to the dogmatic theologians, we have made Christ the offerer at least by that reason which all Catholics admit.

Therefore the priest is minister of Christ insofar as he is endowed by Christ with instrumental power for offering the sacrifice; but he is minister of the Church as its procurator and mandatary.

Therefore the priest bears a public person; the spiritual society sacrifices through him as through a Superior.

The celebrant is besides offerer, just as a singular private person who stands by the sacrifice can be an offerer.

The remaining faithful are offerers, both mediately through the Church, if they are its members, and immediately, if morally, by a peculiar reason, they are joined with the sacrifice itself and cooperate in some active way toward this sacrifice: whether they pay a stipend, minister, or assist at Mass. Contrary to what Noldin thinks, p. 166, the merely mental union by which someone joins himself with Masses which are celebrated cannot constitute an offerer, since sensible participation is desired, and sacrifice is a sensible oblation. Cf. Suarez, Euchar., d. 77, s. 3, n. 3.

Therefore the celebrating priest, besides his own person, represents Christ and the Church; as offerer, he disposes concerning the impetration of Christ and concerning the impetration of the Church. But as performing the consecration, just as in the confection of any sacrament, he is the ministerial cause of Christ alone, who principally operates. Cf. Palmieri, IV, 992.

— a) The fruit of the Mass, or the reward, gift, effect which, on account of the celebrated sacrifice, comes either to the priest, or to those for whom it is offered, or to others, is distinguished as one from ex opere operato, another from ex opere operantis. The former belongs to the sacrifice especially on the part of Christ, who, although now he can neither merit nor satisfy, nevertheless annexed his infinite merits and satisfactions to that sacrifice, and impetrated benefits of every kind for us through it. In some measure also the value which arises from the impetration of the Church, always, though in varying degree, the beloved spouse of Christ and pleasing to God, is said to be ex opere operato, because it does not depend on the devotion of the minister.

The fruit ex opere operantis belongs to that sacrifice from the disposition or fervor of the priest celebrating and of those who, by requesting the sacrifice, ministering, or assisting, actively cooperate toward this sacrifice. For through this good work they merit and satisfy, and through this most worthy prayer they impetrate various things for themselves or for others.

b) On the part of the principal impetratory cause, that is, Christ, the effect of the Mass is absolutely infallible; on the part of the object, if there is question of an actual help that someone dispose himself to grace, or of remission of temporal punishment, it is again infallible; if concerning other things, it is necessary that they be expedient for salvation and be according to the ordinary laws of Providence.

On the part of the subject, apt disposition is required. And as regards remission of punishment, it is required and suffices that, fault having first been blotted out, the state of grace be had.

c) On the part of the mode by which the fruit is acquired, the sacrifice profits both those who offer it and those for whom it is applied by the offerers, that is, by way of suffrage; and it can profit by a twofold title at the same time. But the faithful can offer the sacrifice immediately by joining themselves with the celebrating priest; and they can also do so through the celebrant, as he who pays the stipend and thus is as it were cause of the celebrated Mass.

But every priest, with Christ alone excepted, first offers for himself, then can offer for all with whom he is joined by charity (Hebrews 5:3). From the very institution of Christ and of the Church, the celebrant offers for all living and dead Christians; for the salvation of the whole world (Order of Mass, at the offertory). Finally, by perpetual usage it is certain that it is in the power of the priest to make a special application to a definite intention. Cf. proposition 30 condemned by the Constitution Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, Denzinger, 1530. Wherefore, besides the merit which each one necessarily obtains for himself through the good act of offering or participating in Mass, there is distinguished the general fruit, or common or universal; the special, or middle and ministerial; and the most special, which some call special, others personal.

The general fruit comes, without peculiar intention, to all for whom, from the institution of Christ and of the Church, the sacrifice is offered. Even those who are disposed, or who are impeded by no obstacle, participate in this fruit unequally, so that the participation is greater of those who are more joined with the priest. Therefore those who are present at Mass participate in the benefits more than the absent; the faithful more than those who are outside the Church; indeed certain persons, in punishment, are deprived of direct participation by excommunication.

The most special fruit comes of itself and without necessity of any intention to the priest, and cannot be communicated with others. Yet insofar as it is of impetration, he is not prohibited from using it for others.

The special fruit is in the power of the offerer, and it yields to him who is designated by the intention of the priest. Therefore this application demands the definite will of the priest.

Suarez, De Sacramentis, 3 p., d. 78, s. 2, n. 3, thinks that the general fruit is circumscribed by impetration.

— On the Value of the Mass. 1. Principles. On the part of the victim offered, the Mass is of infinite dignity and infinite value: it contains an infinite treasure. But insofar as it is our oblation of an infinite thing, now its value is not infinite, but it has measure principally from the devotion and affection of the Church, which, although always holy and the beloved spouse of Christ, nevertheless can vary in degree of sanctity; secondarily, from the devotion and fervor of the other offerers, who indeed can subtract nothing from the value which the Church confers, but can add something to the same.

But the application can be impeded or diminished by an obstacle or lesser disposition of the subject to whom it is made.

In the living, dispositions are easily desired: thus affection for venial sin impedes application of satisfaction to the penal expiation of that sin. In the dead, present dispositions are indeed best; but in this application, which is made by way of suffrage, several contend that the past dispositions of souls are also attended to. Cf. Schmid, S.J., Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, Innsbruck, 1893, p. 297 ff., De applicatione per modum suffragii; and Genicot, II, n. 222.

— 2. Corollaries. a) A Mass offered for several profits each one less, since the total fruit, which is exacted according to the devotion of the offerers, must be divided among several;

b) A Mass offered by several titles for one and the same person will profit him more than if it is applied to the same by one title alone. Therefore he who, according to the intention of Titius, is present at the Mass which at the same time he ordered to be celebrated for Titius, profits Titius more than if he had merely paid the stipend; and the utility for Titius grows if several offer the Mass for him by assisting at it, than if the author of the stipend alone were present;

c) The more persons are present at the sacrifice, the more, of itself, or other things being equal, the value of the Mass grows;

d) The value of the Mass is not diminished for individuals because there are more distinct concelebrating priests, or others offering. For from the inexhaustible treasure, a thousand offer just as well as one.

Yet do not gather thence with Cajetan (Opuscula, tom. II, tr. 3, q. 2) that a Mass which a priest celebrates for two stipends profits each offerer equally as if two Masses were celebrated.

For, after an agreement has been made with one offerer concerning a fitting stipend, no other can now be an offerer of the same sacrifice through a stipend; but if another has contributed something, "that will be found outside the ambit of the matter corresponding to the celebration of that sacrifice. The reason of this is because, where something is adequate not only materially but also formally, that is, given and accepted as such, nothing will accede, while such a pact stands, except what is altogether extrinsic. Just as tribute cannot be paid twice; but after tribute has been rendered, whatever is spent over and above has another account. If therefore the priest sacrifices according to the intention of Titius formally giving the integral stipend, he cannot at the same time sacrifice according to the intention of Caius as one giving a stipend" (de la Taille, op. cit., p. 352).

Observe that the case is altogether diverse of one who offers a richer alms for Mass. For he is judged from greater devotion to stand forth more liberal with respect to one sacrifice; and therefore he will receive greater fruit.

Thus also solemn Mass profits more than private Mass. Yet several Masses repeat acts of devotion of the celebrant and those standing by. Therefore it is difficult to establish what of itself profits the deceased more: whether a solemn sacred rite be offered for him, or, for the same sum of money, several private Masses. Therefore it will be more satisfactory to accommodate oneself to received usages. Thus also de la Taille, l. c., in the note.

e) The faithful in general are at once offerers and subjects for whom Mass is offered. But the more numerous the offerers are, the more the total value of the offered Mass grows. Therefore the diminution which follows the division of total value among several is of itself compensated by the total value increased;

f) Besides the limitation which the devotion of the offerers brings to the value of the Mass, another is had from the disposition of him to whom the application is made.

— In this plainer way the controverted question concerning the infinite or finite force of efficacious application seems to be solved. Several admitted that the efficacy is intensively infinite, insofar as if nothing were lacking to the application and disposition of the subject, the effect of impetration or propitiation would be circumscribed by no certain breadth, and one sacrifice would avail for impetrating every benefit. There have also been those who contended that the efficacy is extensively infinite, insofar as application made for several would profit each one equally as if Mass had been celebrated for only one; this was defended by St. Alphonsus himself in his Moral Theology. Yet from that opinion, as we are taught by the editor P. Gaude in l. 6, n. 312, he receded in various little works, such as De caerimoniis missae, etc.; and he propounded, as the more common, the opinion which said that the fruit was intensively and extensively finite.

But indications of limitation are both the common custom in the Church of offering the sacred rite for individual persons, whether living or dead, and not generally for all; and the prohibition lest someone attempt by one Mass to satisfy an obligation arisen from stipend, vow, precept of a Superior, etc. But others seek the finite efficacy from a positive will of God which would have attached the infinite satisfactions of the Cross to individual sacrifices not infinitely, but according to a certain mode. Better, as it seems to us, a will of this arbitrary kind is excluded.

— That priests can validly concelebrate is sufficiently certain from episcopal consecration, in which the consecrator with the consecrated, and from presbyteral ordination, in which the new priests with the one ordaining, concelebrate. It is certain also from the usages of the Oriental rite. And they admit also that it is lawful for individual concelebrants to receive a stipend for their oblation.

Yet the explanation of the matter is not so easy, so that Cajetan, in 3 p., q. 82, art. 2, after difficulties had been proposed, attending only to the concelebration of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration, denied that the new priests truly consecrate, but thought that they merely recite the Mass together with the bishop; but he admitted that the consecrated bishop truly consecrates the bread and wine with the consecrator, because physical simultaneity in the pronunciation of the form could then be obtained. This opinion of Cajetan, as regards the new priests, cannot be composed with the practice and sense of the Church.

Concerning the matter itself, these things besides can be established as certain: a) that priests truly concelebrate, there is need that each one efficaciously influence the consecration. For in each consecration itself the essential oblation consists; b) that each one efficaciously influence, it is necessary that transubstantiation not happen before all have pronounced the essential form. For words cannot influence into a transubstantiation already performed. From St. Thomas, q. 82, art. 2, we can gather only this: that no consecration is repeated, but one consecration is made by the concelebrants, since the intention of all is borne toward the same instant of consecration; and that the plurality of celebrants is not superfluous, because all consecrate in the person of Christ, in whom all are one.

An explanation seems able to be attempted in two ways. Since the instrumental causality of the consecrating priest is not properly physical, in order that the concelebrants efficaciously influence into one consecration, which God as principal cause operates by total causality, it suffices that they morally pronounce the essential words at the same moment. In this explanation, therefore, a proper action of consecrating is ascribed to each. Or all are said, from agreement, to consecrate in solidum as one individual presbyterium, so that all utterances constitute only one sacramental sign and therefore one form of consecration, which is not complete until all have completed their recitation. This latter explanation is proposed in Mysterium Fidei, p. 354 ff.

In the former explanation, since all things have themselves as if each one made a separate consecration, the individual priestly oblations are manifestly worthy of stipend. In the other explanation, each is judged to take a quota part of the total stipend, which is to be fitted to the number of celebrants. And since the fruit grows from the number of those devoutly offering, concelebrants can also then apply the Mass for the separate stipend which they have received.

But the words uttered in the Mass of ordination, "Have the intention of consecrating with the Reverend Bishop," do not signify: "Have the intention of consecrating then when the Bishop has pronounced the words, whether your pronunciation has already been completed or is still to be completed"; but it is a simple admonition that they strive as much as they can to pronounce the words together with the Bishop, and that by moral conjunction they will to perform one consecration with the Bishop.

— I. Mass, which is sometimes taken for the sacrifice itself of the New Law, is strictly the sacred ceremony in which the sacrifice of the New Law is offered.

The essence of that sacrifice is commonly placed in each consecration of bread and wine; and it is at the same time latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and propitiatory.

The principal offerer is Christ, at least insofar as he himself offered the sacrifice of the Cross and commanded its perpetual renewal in the Church, suitable power having been given to priests. The Church offers the sacrifice through the ministry of the priest deputed by her; the celebrant also offers, as he is a private person; the remaining faithful offer mediately through the Church and immediately if morally, by a peculiar reason, they are joined with the sacrifice. The celebrant is minister of the Church as offerer; minister of Christ and instrument of God as performing the consecration.

The fruit of the Mass is distinguished as one from ex opere operato, which belongs to it on the part of Christ and in some measure also on the part of the impetration of the Church; another from ex opere operantis, from the disposition of the celebrant and of those who actively cooperate with the sacrifice; with at least the impetratory fruit attended to, general, which comes to all for whom it is offered from the institution of Christ and of the Church; special, which is in the power of the offerer, and therefore demands a definite will of the celebrant; most special, which comes to the priest.

The fruit is infallible on the part of Christ and on the part of the object, if it is an actual help for disposing oneself to grace, or remission of temporal punishment, or if the thing is expedient for salvation and is according to the ordinary laws of Providence; but on the part of the subject it requires an apt disposition. For remission of punishment it suffices that, fault having been blotted out, the state of grace be had. Application is made to the dead by way of suffrage, and perhaps their past dispositions are attended to.

From the offered victim, the sacrifice of the Mass is of infinite value. Yet the efficacy of the application is finite both intensively and extensively. Intensively, insofar as, although the thing offered induces a value far surpassing our acts, nevertheless the devotion of the offerer is also to be considered: hence the value of the application is fitted principally to the devotion of the Church offering commonly through the priest, and to the devotion of those offering more specially, that is, of the celebrant, of the one giving the stipend, and of those assisting. Extensively, insofar as, when applied for many, application to each individual becomes less perfect. But the fruit is not diminished because of a greater number of concelebrants, offerers, or faithful.

— 1. The Priestly Order Itself, from the present discipline, obliges all priests to celebrate the sacred rite several times a year (c. 805); and the bishop or religious Superior must take care that, at least on individual Sundays and feasts of precept, they perform divine things (c. 805).

From the present discipline, I say, which by a sufficiently common opinion of classic doctors has been introduced or manifested. And they hold that there is a grave obligation of sacrificing three or four times a year.

But with positive law set aside, it will be lawful with St. Bonaventure, in 4 Sent., d. 12, p. 2, art. 2, q. 1; Lugo, Euchar., d. 20, n. 2; d'Annibale, Summula, III, 163 (10); Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 1005, 1006, to deny the efficacy of the demonstration by which St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 82, art. 10, Suarez, Vasquez, Laymann, and St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 313, wish to derive that obligation from natural or divine law. For in so great a number of priests, complete abstinence of some does not take away in the Church of God that number of Masses which is equal to worshipping God duly and impetrating graces; the cited place, 2 Corinthians 6:1, "We exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain," is not to the point, since it treats of vocation to faith and to salvation, nor do the words sound as a precept. Besides, St. Jerome never celebrated Mass, nor was he alone in abstaining from celebration; St. Ignatius himself omitted celebration for a whole first year. But, as is evident, today the pious use of daily celebration is very much to be commended.

— 2. Precept of a Superior. Let us distinguish celebration and application of Mass.

Celebration, as long as he judges it commanded by necessity of the Church, the proper territorial Ordinary does not indeed seem able to prescribe directly, but from c. 128 he is permitted to impose on a priest not impeded a function with which this obligation is joined.

The application of Mass itself can be commanded to all by the Supreme Pontiff; and to religious subjects, from the manner in which the vow of obedience is customarily understood, by the competent Superior. Indeed Lehmkuhl, II, 283, thinks that the obligation of justice of celebrating for stipends, which he himself has undertaken for the community, can be transferred by the Superior to individual professed persons. It is controverted whether or not a bishop or Superior, who can command by jurisdiction alone, has power for commanding application. R. P. Cappello, op. c., I, 689, admits the power.

Yet a precept of this kind is opposed to received usage. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 282; Wernz, III, 583.

Recently, however, on May 8, 1920, in the Vigevano case, the Sacred Congregation of the Council judged that, by force of an apostolic indult by which a faculty is made to a bishop "of dispensing priests exercising care of souls from the obligation of sacrificing the Mass for the people, of permitting priests repeating Mass on a feast day that they may have power to apply the second Mass according to the mind of the Ordinary himself, for the effect of spending the alms in favor of the Seminary," by force, I say, of such an indult, a right belongs to the bishop of prescribing the application of which there is question, so that, this episcopal prescription having been made, it is no longer free to the pastor on those days to sacrifice for the people, nor to the priest binating to celebrate the other Mass gratis for another intention (A. A. S., XII [1920], p. 536 ff.).

But application of Mass can be prescribed under grave sin (St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 317).

— 3. Care of Souls. After the sacrifice of Holy Mass was instituted, by divine-natural law pastors of souls, whether secular or regular, must sometimes sacrifice for their sheep. This is more of absolutely divine law in bishops, since the very function is of divine institution. Cf. the dissertation of Tarquini, J. S. S., I, 389 ff. In what way the Church has now defined the obligation of bishops, quasi-bishops, pastors, and quasi-pastors, we saw above, nn. 87, 89-92, 94-96.

Yet concerning the strict obligation of regular Superiors it is not certain. Cf. Cappello, op. c., I, 640.

— 4. Burden of a Benefice. A beneficiary must, under mortal sin and the debt of compensating, celebrate as many Masses, whether by himself or through another, according as the mind of the founder forbids or permits this option, as the letters of foundation require.

If the chaplaincy⁽¹⁾ was manual, or consists in Masses not properly founded but to be cared for by a private person, and for each Mass a certain alms is handed over, this whole alms is owed to the celebrant. But if individual stipends do not correspond to individual Masses, it is enough that the beneficiary provide a congruent alms to the celebrant, unless something else has been provided in the tables of foundation.

Without an apostolic indult, it is not lawful for a bishop to reduce burdens of Masses because the assigned revenues are unequal to the tax to be paid today, unless the founder himself has made this faculty to the bishop.

But if the revenues themselves have entirely failed, without fault of the beneficiary, the beneficiary, from the common opinion, is no longer held by celebration.

But if they have decreased: either a competent alms was assigned to each Mass, to be estimated from the time of the foundation, as if he said: "I bequeath such an olive grove to the fabric of the church with the burden that from the annual fruits one hundred stipends of two francs be taken for as many Masses"; then according to the increase or diminution of revenues, the number of Masses will have to be increased or diminished; or the testator defined the number of Masses absolutely; then some permitted that, from the mind of the testator, the beneficiary diminish the number of Masses pro rata, if from the revenues he no longer drew that tax which from the ancient computation was congruent. Others opposed this opinion, and St. Alphonsus did not dare to judge concerning its probability. But now, from c. 1517, §2, recourse must be had to the Holy See for that reduction of Masses.

Permission of the Holy See, which is not denied, is also to be sought so that one can use the Italian law which, with a certain tribute paid, makes an abundance of freeing goods of a chaplaincy from pious burdens, while nevertheless the obligation of fulfilling these burdens remains.

He who by reason of a benefice is held to daily celebration must also, unless a diverse intention of the founder is certain, apply Mass for the founder.

A beneficiary impeded by an illness not prolonged need not substitute another for himself or compensate omitted Masses: for the obligation is to be interpreted in a human manner; and honorable masters themselves condone these impediments to servants. But an illness of fifteen days, indeed of one or another month, is not judged prolonged, as Lugo probably estimates, Euchar., d. 21, n. 49, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, VI, 333. But other impediments, even just ones, of business ought not to harm the founder. Wherefore the beneficiary must satisfy through another the burden which he himself cannot fulfill, or afterward supply it himself, at least when the burden is real. For if the burden was personal of daily celebration, he can omit it as often as a reasonable cause occurs (Sacred Congregation of the Council, September 18, 1683). The common opinion also permits the same one, unless the tables of foundation prescribe stricter things, to offer the sacred rite four or six times a year for himself or for persons joined by blood or friendship, gratis.

⁽¹⁾ By the name of chaplaincy is designated a simple benefice which, because of the burden of celebrating Mass, is judged to give care of a chapel or oratory.

— 5. Voluntary Promise. a) This can be a vow; its matter is judged grave. It can be a gratuitous promise: unless the one promising expressly bound himself under grave guilt, the obligation is judged to be of fidelity, and therefore light. Finally it can be onerous, or from contract. Here, from c. 826 itself, manual stipends, stipends after the manner of manual, and founded stipends, or founded Masses, are to be distinguished.

"Stipends which are offered by the faithful for Masses, whether from their own devotion, or, as it were, into the hand, or from an obligation even perpetual made by a testator to his own heirs, are called manual" (c. 826, §1). Stipends of founded Masses which are handed to other priests are called after the manner of manual, whether by law or from an indult of the Holy See, because they cannot be applied in their own place or by those who would have had to apply them according to the tables of foundation (c. 826, §2). Finally, stipends which are received from the revenues of foundations are called founded.

By what reason the use of demanding a stipend for Masses is pure from all simony, we saw in the prior special part, where there is question of the virtue of religion and the sin of simony.

The breadth of the matter seems to demand that we treat these arguments in distinct articles.

We think that the many things which have been prescribed concerning this matter can be set forth summarily in this way.

— I. The Undertaking of the Obligation. These things are not lawful:

1. by celebrating several times in the day, to accept a double or triple stipend, except for the three Masses on the Nativity of the Lord; or by one Mass to satisfy an obligation of justice, such as a pastor has, and to say another for a stipend. For the other Mass only some remuneration from an extrinsic title is permitted (c. 824, §2), for example, of singing, of the hour, of a distant place. But it does not matter which Mass is said first;

2. to receive a stipend for a Mass which is already owed from justice (c. 825, 2° and 3°), or which in any way is applied to another first intention; but "as many Masses must be celebrated and applied as stipends, even small ones, have been given and accepted" (c. 828);

3. to retain an alms for a Mass applied before it has been requested (c. 825, 1°), unless the offerer, having been warned, ratifies the matter.

In this way we reconcile with the absolute prohibition of the Code the opinion admitted by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, c. 3, n. 337, and rejected by R. P. Cappello, op. c., I, n. 604, which permits that for a person already deceased, to whom it will profit to be aided more quickly by a Mass, a priest who foresees that a stipend is going to be offered may already offer the Mass and afterward receive the stipend. Yet if we wish to speak accurately, money given in this way will no longer have the character of a stipend of the Mass, but rather of a remunerative donation for the benefit received of Masses celebrated. Wherefore the offerer seems to have to be warned that he should ratify the matter;

4. to accept one stipend for the celebration alone, another for the application of the same Mass, "unless it is certain that one offering was offered for celebration without application" (c. 825, 4°);

5. to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated personally that you cannot satisfy them within a year (c. 855).

Therefore he who can say within a year 300 Masses for a stipend is forbidden to bind himself to celebrating more than 300 Masses personally. Nor, since the law does not distinguish, does it matter if an option is given of saying them over several years. Yet the express consent of the offerers, who know the quantity of Masses already accepted, seems able to permit this: no injury is done to one who consents;

6. by means of stipends really, or even in appearance, to trade or conduct commerce (c. 827). What trading or commerce is was explained above, n. 21. Those devices have the appearance of trading which, although they do not fall under the strict definition of trading, nevertheless are imbued with the color of trading because of profit studiously sought from the collection and distribution or exchange of stipends.

For, since in every trading or commerce these two things are discerned: acquisition, and a profitable sale or quasi-sale intended through the acquisition itself, the very appearance of trading seems to require both elements at least in some imperfect way. Now the acquisition will be the studied collection of stipends, made in order to obtain profit from paying out or distribution, which will be a quasi-sale, although the proper character of gainful or artificial trading is in part lacking.

And so he trades by means of stipends who collects stipends of greater price so that, having obtained Masses with a smaller stipend, he may profit from them; or who collects stipends so that he may profit from the exchange of money. But he commits the appearance of trading who collects stipends so that, having obtained the consent of celebrants, he may be able to retain part for himself. He conducts commerce by means of stipends who collects stipends so that he may convert them into books which, with profit, he hands over to priests for money, or so that he may transfer them to another place where the use of a smaller stipend prevails. But if he hands over books without profit, still that collector of stipends commits the appearance of trading. These things, therefore, cannot be done without an indult of the Holy See.

But he who, from stipends not studiously collected, retains a part for himself or for a good work neither trades nor exercises commerce, although this is forbidden by a direct prohibition;

7. to demand a stipend beyond the tax established by the Ordinary or by custom, or, unless you are moved by reason of particular friendship or mercy, to be content with less, if the local Ordinary has forbidden smaller stipends to be accepted. For exempt religious themselves are held to observing these taxes and statutes.

It is lawful to increase the tax for an added extrinsic labor of singing, etc.

— II. The Gravity and Execution of the Obligation. 1. The priest must celebrate the Masses thus promised under grave obligation. Yet he who omits one out of a hundred promised for the same intention does not seem to Lehmkuhl, II, 269, 1, and Cappello, I, 668, certainly to sin gravely, because he lessens one series by a modest part; which, however, others do not admit.

There were also those who said that the obligation of one Mass is not grave if the stipend is not grave. And Ballerini, IV, 1012, does not judge this opinion improbable. In the appended note, Palmieri would rather gather the gravity from the precept of the Church, because, as he himself says, if it arose from contract, a small sum of money would have to be restored under grave obligation, which cannot be admitted. All these things seem to us to rest on a confusion by which the contract concerning the celebration and application of Mass is assimilated to sale. The obligation of celebrating one Mass is grave because the priest from justice has bound himself to a matter of great moment. Nor does one who violates the obligation have to restore a small sum of money under grave obligation, but to take care that the Mass be said.

2. The obligation does not cease even if, without fault of him who is burdened with the duty of celebrating, the alms already received have perished (c. 829). And this from natural law itself, as R. P. Arendt, S.J., lucidly proves in a special dissertation.

We restrict that severity to him who was held by a personal obligation of celebrating, by himself or through others. For this is general, that if someone, from another's onerous obligation, has obtained that to which he had a right, he must now execute his own obligation absolutely, in whatever way the profit received has perished.

But if there were question of one who was only a mandatary (of whom in c. 837), who merely had to transmit stipends and had never acquired the stipends, he would be held to nothing if those stipends had perished by a fortuitous event while with him. For these had not entered his patrimony; and the obligation of mandate must be said to cease by impossibility of execution.

3. He who accepts a sum for Masses to be said, the number of which was not defined, must compute his obligation according to the tax of the place in which the offerer was dwelling, "unless another intention of his is legitimately presumed" (c. 830).

4. Masses must be said at the time expressly prescribed; if it was not expressly prescribed, the celebrant must say as soon as possible the Masses whose cause urges; but others within a moderate time.

This can be estimated according to the rules of the decree Ut debita, May 11, 1904, so that one promised Mass ought to be said within a month, then for two Masses of the same intention three days beyond a month can be counted; ten Masses offered by the same person are to be completed within a month and a half; but six months are deputed for one hundred Masses to be said. All these things are to be taken not mathematically but morally.

But a delay of one or another month beyond the lawful time is considered grave.

5. The offerer is presumed to have requested only the application of the Mass; "yet if the offerer has expressly determined some circumstances to be observed in the celebration of the Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will" (c. 833).

And so in itself the priest is permitted to choose the quality of the Mass according to his devotion; yet the circumstances which he has tacitly admitted by receiving the alms he will have to observe. And many circumstances, for example, of a privileged altar, of black vestments, of a votive Mass, are such that, since they are not burdensome, they ought not to be compensated by a greater stipend. And although a Mass with black vestments or of the feria with the proper prayer of the deceased is no longer required for gaining the indulgence of a privileged altar, "nevertheless we are admonished by the decree of the Holy Office (Section on Indulgences), February 19-20, 1913, that this is laudably done, when it is lawful and fitting, for the sake of piety toward the deceased" (Periodica, VII, 121).

6. Toward the end of any year, whoever by any title are obliged to burdens of Masses are to hand over to their Ordinaries the burdens of Masses for which satisfaction has not yet been made, according to the manner to be defined by them (c. 841, §1). In Masses "after the manner of manual," the obligation runs from the end of the civil year within which the burdens ought to have been fulfilled; in manual Masses, after a year from the day of the burden undertaken, without prejudice to a diverse will of the offerers (c. 841, §2).

The diverse will of the offerers, when there is question not of Masses which, as Masses after the manner of manual, have proceeded from a pious foundation, but of manual Masses, could grant a time greater than a year; in which case the burdens will not have to be handed over. Masses after the manner of manual are made from founded Masses, because they can no longer be celebrated by the persons obliged, and are to be handed over to Ordinaries. But they admit that this time can be taken morally and that some Masses can be retained at the end of the year, lest a priest lack stipends (Cappello, op. c., I, p. 712).

7. Local Ordinaries and religious Superiors who entrust Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or others must take care, as far as they are able, that they are celebrated as soon as possible (c. 844).

We interpret this canon, rather obscure, in this way. Since local Ordinaries and Superiors have many subjects to whom they entrust Masses, the faithful not rarely hand over a great number of Masses to them with that intention, that they may be celebrated more quickly than by individual priests. Yet nothing indicates that the lawful time is in itself to be defined otherwise. The same persons, besides, are accustomed at the end of the year to receive burdens for which the space of time has already elapsed. This is another reason for taking care that those burdens be fulfilled as soon as possible. Yet since they ought not to transmit the burden of these Masses to others, and so preserve too many to be fulfilled, they are merely warned that they "take care as far as they are able." For it can happen that, because of too great an abundance, the Masses cannot be discharged so quickly.

8. He who is held not indeed by the obligation of celebrating but of distributing Masses should distribute the Masses as soon as possible; but, unless something else is clear, the time of lawful celebration has its beginning from the day on which the priest about to celebrate them has accepted them (c. 837).

Here there is question of the administrator of a pious cause, or an heir or executor of a testament, who, as the first offerer, has Masses to be distributed; but not of him, for example, a Superior, who has already undertaken in himself the burden of celebrating by himself or through others. For it cannot be in this one's judgment that, by delaying distribution, he increase the lawful time.

— III. Transmission of the Obligation. 1. The severity of recent decrees, especially of the decree Recenti decreto, May 22, 1907 (Periodica, III, 138 or II-III, 322), having been moderated, the Code permits Masses to be handed over to well-regarded priests, whom either the transmitter himself has known to be "above every exception," that is, altogether worthy, or the testimony of their own Ordinary has commended (c. 838).

Those above every exception are the same as excellent persons, or those upon whom suspicion cannot fall. This is properly said of a witness who is eminently suitable (cf. Reiffenstuel, Ius can., II, 20, 10-11). Transmission permitted to approved priests is prohibited from being made to booksellers or merchants who collect alms of Masses and repay to priests not the money itself but books and other merchandise (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, September 9, 1874; decree Vigilanti studio, May 23, 1893). But it is not disapproved that stipends which abound be entrusted to a good priest to be distributed to poorer priests. But in order that they be handed over to a pious work, for example, an institute for spreading good periodicals, it is necessary that there be certainty about an indult by which either retention of part of the stipend, or exchange with religious newspapers, is permitted, although because of the appearance of trading or the dangers of abuses, these things were prohibited by the decree Ut debita of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 11, 1904.

But the bishop does not seem able by synodal statute to prohibit what c. 838 expressly permits, that Masses be handed over to other approved priests outside the diocese, nor to attach a condition unknown to common law, for example, the consent of the Ordinary "lest stipends be transferred outside the diocese." We say this about stipends of which priests have free disposition. For if there is question of stipends offered to a church, for example, a secular sanctuary which is a place of pilgrimages, the local Ordinary could use his jurisdiction in those churches to command that stipends accepted there not go beyond the boundaries of the diocese. But insofar as they are executors of pious wills (c. 1515), they can indeed impede those transfers which they judge imprudent or alien to the mind of the donor; yet they cannot directly prohibit stipends from being carried outside the diocese.

But sometimes, in an indult for the reduction of founded Masses, provision is made that Masses to be celebrated outside the diocese not be handed over beyond a third part; or bishops are permitted to forbid transfer beyond the disposition of the Code. Thus in the month of March 1922 the Sacred Congregation of the Council indulged to the bishops of the Netherlands that they could prohibit priests from transmitting Masses outside the diocese without their consent (cf. Periodica, XII, p. 37 ff.).

2. He who has handed over to another for celebration Masses committed to his faith remains obliged "until they have obtained testimony of the obligation accepted by the same persons and of the stipend received" (c. 839).

And so concerning the execution itself of a legitimately transferred obligation, contrary to what was provided by the decree Ut debita, no solicitude is now imposed by positive law upon him who transfers the burden.

3. Manual offerings are to be transmitted entire, "unless either the offerer expressly permits something to be retained, or it is certain that the excess above the diocesan tax was given with consideration of the person" (c. 840, §1). They are to be transmitted entire at least in this way, that the celebrant by the celebration acquires a right to the whole stipend.

Is this prescription of positive law alone, which, already from Urban VIII and Innocent XII, Constitution Nuper, December 23, 1697, was sanctioned, and afterward several times and now by c. 840, §1 is confirmed, or also of natural law? There are those who think that in itself it is lawful that you offer less, though a just stipend, to the priest, and retain the excess, because this is the common norm admitted concerning him who executes through another an obligation undertaken. Thus Busembaum himself in c. 3, dub. 1 De Eucharistia. Others think the same in itself lawful for a priest, but not for a layman transmitting, because in a priest, but not in a layman, the intention of the offerer is fulfilled, who was deputing the alms for the congruent support of a priest. Thus Suarez, Sacr., I p., d. 86, s. 3, toward the end. But this assimilation of one transmitting an alms with the executor of any obligation seems false to us. For he who offers the alms of a Mass to one accepting it by no means, at least in itself, simply says to him: "Take care that so many Masses be celebrated"; but he intends to join such an alms with the Masses which will be said. He admits no other title besides celebration by which that money can be kept. Nor does he destine it immediately to the support of the priest, but only through the mediation of celebration; that is, he does not give the money except as a stipend of a Mass. Nor is the thing indifferent; for from a more abundant alms he can hope for a better or more intense application of the fruit for himself (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, in the Cause of Montevideo and others, January 10, 1920, among the observations of the secretary, A. A. S., XI, 1920, p. 72). And so with the much more common opinion today, we hold that the alms is customarily offered in such a way that, already in itself, the distributor or priest who transfers the obligation undertaken to another can retain for himself no part of the stipend received by any title.

He who has secretly retained part of the stipend has sinned against justice and is held to restitution. Thus we say with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 321, and we prove it both from the nature of the offense, which contains the malice of theft, and from the obvious sense of the decrees of the Holy See. Already Alexander VII condemned proposition 9: that a priest can satisfy through another "by conferring a smaller stipend on him"; and Benedict XIV, Constitution Quanta cura, declared that collectors of Masses who retained part of the stipend for themselves were not immune from theft. Wherefore at least concerning those who are not priests (for the collectors in themselves were not priests), the matter can no longer be doubted. Yet there were those who thought that the obligation of restitution is not certainly clear. Thus Ballerini, IV, 1017; more expressly Noldin, III, 191, and even now, Arregui, Summarium, n. 567, 5. But cf. the strong reasons, both historical and intrinsic, which R. P. Arendt opposes to these in the booklet De laesione iustitiae commutativae in missae manuali stipendio alteri celebranti diminuto (Prato, 1914). That injustice primarily injures the offerer himself of the stipend. Wherefore c. 840, §1 admits that it can be expressly permitted by the offerer that something be retained. Yet restitution can also be made to the celebrating priest; indeed to him occult restitution is to be made, so that the will of the offerer, not revoked, may obtain its effects.

But he does not violate justice who, by title of donation, obtains from the celebrant part of the stipend or even the whole stipend which he had to hand over. And in itself the matter stands the same whether the celebrant wished to offer the Mass gratis or for a partial stipend. Yet the danger of abuse is much greater in a partial donation than in a complete donation. Wherefore partial liberality could be prohibited where full liberality was admitted, and must be proposed and admitted more cautiously than complete liberality.

Canon 840 itself permits that the excess above the diocesan tax be retained if it is certain that the excess was given with consideration of the person, so that it is not a formal part of the stipend.

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

For the founder is judged not only to have prescribed Masses, but also to have wished to benefit the service of some church and therefore its beneficiaries. Yet the Code does not simply permit that the richer alms of a founded Mass be retained in part whenever Masses are celebrated elsewhere or by another than ought in itself to have been done, but attaches this condition: "If the greater alms is, as it were, a partial dowry of the benefice or pious cause." But then it does not require that the customary alms of the place where the Masses were founded be assigned, but declares it sufficient that the alms of the diocese where the Mass will be celebrated be paid. This can give place to cunning devices. Yet it does not seem able to be a frequent abuse.

— Corollaries or Scholia. It is helpful to illustrate the doctrine handed down by certain cases. In solving these, the rule of c. 827, concerning every appearance of trading to be kept away from the offering of Masses, must always be kept before the eyes, besides the principle of justice concerning fulfilling the will of the offerer.

1. It is lawful to ask another that he be willing to celebrate gratis and yield the whole stipend to the transmitter. Nor, because of a particular cause of consoling someone's affliction or of a good work, is a priest forbidden to ask part of the stipend from the celebrant, provided the concession is not made a condition without which the Mass would not be transmitted: for then the character of true liberality would be absent; and provided Masses are not collected with the mind of obtaining in this way parts of stipends: for then an appearance of commerce would be introduced.

2. Priests can exchange intentions of Masses among themselves, retaining their respective stipends even when unequal, since then each renounces the whole of the other's stipend, and abuse is more difficult. Yet a studied capture of a richer stipend would have to be reproved, namely if frequently, by seeking out rich stipends, you acquire profits of this kind for yourself.

3. A pastor who entrusts to another the singing of a Mass whose celebration is placed among parochial rights, for example, in the funerals of the dead, does not have to hand over to the celebrant except the customary alms for a Mass which is sung at such an hour; the rest he licitly retains as pertaining to stole fees.

4. He to whom Masses are legated, which the testator has taxed above the customary alms, if he fulfills the burden through another, can easily keep the excess by title of legacy.

5. But if Masses have been legated not to a definite priest, but to a church, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 25, 1874, judged that the alms, from the mind of the founder, cannot be separated from celebration. Much less will this separation be permitted if not even the church itself was determined: then it is clear that the testator wished favor to be given to the celebrant alone.

6. It is not lawful for rectors of churches to take anything from manual stipends by which provision may be made for the beauty and ornament of the church; the same is lawful for paying the expenses of celebration, if the Church has no other revenues destined to this end, provided as many Masses are celebrated as have been prescribed by the offerers. But from perpetual foundations it is lawful to deduct the expenses of utensils (cf. A. S. S., XXI, p. 299 ff.).

Nor does a rector of a church seem able to be prohibited from asking from outside priests who desire to celebrate in his church that they pay the expenses of celebration (cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 322, end; d'Annibale, III, 190 [17]).

7. For churches which receive Masses in too great a quantity for them to be able to be celebrated there in due time, c. 836 sets down this rule: "The faithful are to be warned by a notice placed in an open and obvious place, that the Masses offered will be celebrated either there, when it will conveniently be possible, or elsewhere."

8. He who demands a greater stipend without a title of extrinsic labor or something similar is presumed in the external forum to be simoniacal; but in the internal forum he will be guilty of scandal, of a violated law obliging from religion, and also of injustice, since he asks beyond what is just (Bucceroni, II, p. 157), but not of the sin of simony unless he wished to sell sacred things, as if he asks more on account of a privileged altar or a miraculous place.

9. He who had promised Masses for a stipend is not in itself freed by occult restitution of the money, since the offerer of the stipend is nevertheless frustrated of the Masses to which he had acquired a right, nor is money equivalent to Masses. But either an occasion must be offered to the same person of obtaining Masses, or condonation must be obtained from the Holy See, which can supply the defect from the treasures of the Church.

— IV. Annotation of Masses. 1. The rector of any church or pious place in which alms of Masses are customarily received must accurately note, in a special book, the number, intention, alms, and celebration of the Masses received. And Ordinaries, whether of places or major Superiors of exempt clerical religions, must review books of this kind each year by themselves or through others (c. 843).

2. Moreover the local Ordinaries themselves and religious Superiors who entrust Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or others must enter in order in a book the Masses which they have accepted with their alms. "Indeed all priests, whether secular or religious, must accurately annotate what intentions of Masses each has received and for which he has satisfied" (c. 844).

That this burden is a matter of conscience is evident in itself, lest because of our negligence we ourselves violate grave obligations, or, oppressed by some accident, prepare inextricable difficulties for successors.

— V. Penalties. By more than one earlier decree penalties latae sententiae were established. The Code does not confirm these; but it wills that those who have committed an offense against the prescription of c. 827, by which every appearance also of trading is kept away from the offering of Masses, or of c. 828, by which as many Masses are commanded to be celebrated and applied as stipends have been accepted, or of c. 840, §1, which commands that one transmitting Masses transmit entire the manual offerings of Masses accepted, be punished by their Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault, not excluding suspension, or deprivation of benefice or office, or, if there is question of laypersons, excommunication (c. 2324).

— VI. Indults. The Holy See can condone faults in the external forum and remit several obligations, since it can compensate not a few defects from the treasures of the Church.

For the same reason, it can in advance indulge certain things which otherwise would be prohibited, especially when it is not always clear that there is question of natural law. And when the prohibition is of positive law, its intervention bars the excesses whose danger is usually the cause of the law.

— VII. On Gregorian Masses and the Gregorian Altar. 1. In his Dialogues, l. 4, c. 55 (P. L., 77, 410 ff.), St. Gregory relates that on the thirtieth day the soul of the monk Justus, for whom he had commanded that the sacred rite be celebrated through thirty strictly continuous days, was freed from purgatorial flames. Hence there prevailed the pious use of the Gregorian thirty, which is subject only to these conditions: that in an uninterrupted series through thirty days Mass be offered by one or several priests for one and the same soul. Through thirty days, I say, so that on the Nativity of the Lord only one Mass can be computed for the same thirty. But not long ago, March 15, 1884 (A. S. S., XVI, 509), the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences affirmed that confidence concerning the special efficacy of Gregorian Masses is pious and reasonable. This efficacy is explained in Nouvelle Revue Theologique (t. 21 [1889], p. 121) by the special intercession of St. Gregory. Hence it follows that a priest derogates from an obligation of justice who, having undertaken the special burden of thirty continuous Masses, interrupts the same, unless he has done this from an indult of the Holy See, which can supply the defect. Thus an interruption of three days at the end of Holy Week does not stand in the way of the virtue of the thirty; thus by decree of May 26, 1918, the Sacred Penitentiary made the faculty that on June 29 of that year priests could interrupt the thirty in order to celebrate Mass for the intention of the Supreme Pontiff for peace. But, with the intervention of apostolic authority set aside, the priest who says disconnected Gregorian Masses deprives the offerer of the stipend of a reasonable hope of special fruit. But if, as usually happens, that burden has been compensated by a greater stipend, he keeps that increase for himself without title (cf. decree of the Holy Office, December 11, 1912 [A. A. S., V, 32-33]).

What, then, remains to be done by him who, distracted, has interrupted the series?

Although other counsels also are suggested, if the Gregorian thirty was to be executed from justice, as Gregorian, the truly secure way will be of having recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary. Yet Cardinal Gennari also thinks it sufficient that he take care that Mass be said at the Gregorian altar of the City, or at an altar privileged after the manner of Gregorian.

For they judge the special efficacy of thirty Masses to be connected likewise with one Mass which is said at the Gregorian altar which exists at Rome in the church of Monte Celio. For, besides the common character of a privileged altar, it is said to have a special power for the souls of purgatory, the persuasion concerning which, approved by the same decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, seems to bear the same explanation. You may say the same of Gregorian altars after the manner, which after the decree of the Holy Office, December 11, 1912, are no longer newly conceded (cf. Gennari, Questioni teologico-morali, n. 417).

— I. 1. From the present discipline, priests, as such, must celebrate several times in the year; and bishops and religious Superiors must take care that priests celebrate at least on individual Sundays and feasts of precept.

2. Because of the necessity of the Church, the proper Ordinary can prescribe celebration to a priest not impeded, by conferring on him an office with which celebration is required. The Supreme Pontiff and a religious Superior can impose the same directly and simply, or prescribe application.

3. Pastors must sometimes sacrifice for their sheep.

4. A beneficiary must celebrate and apply Mass so that he satisfies the letters of foundation.

5. A voluntary promise can oblige from religion, if it is a vow; from fidelity, if it is a simple promise; from justice, if it is a contract.

II. Founded Masses are those whose stipends are received from the revenues of foundations. But a foundation designates temporal goods given to some moral person in the Church with the perpetual or at least long-lasting burden of performing a pious work, for example, of celebrating Masses. The written consent of the local Ordinary or major Superior of exempt religious is required for a foundation to be accepted; the goods are first to be kept according to his prudent judgment and as soon as possible to be placed fruitfully. Copies of the documents are to be placed in the archive of the curia of the Ordinary or Superior and of the moral person to whom the foundation pertains. A little table of the burdens of the Church is to be kept with the rector; and the burdens to be fulfilled and fulfilled are to be annotated in a book for this. Burdens are to be executed accurately according to the will of the testator; nor can perpetual transfer of burdens from one altar or church to another, or reduction of Masses, be made without an apostolic indult. An accidental change of the will of the testator seems permitted to the Ordinary. Burdens remaining at the end of the year are to be handed over to the Ordinary.

III. A stipend, by which provision is made at least in part for the support of the minister, and which is not paid as the price of the Mass but as a real prestation in a legitimate contract, by which prestation having been performed, the priest obliges himself to the application of the Mass, is paid and accepted without the stain of simony.

To remove all avarice, 1. these things are forbidden: except for the three Masses on the Nativity of the Lord, on the same day to satisfy by one or several Masses an obligation of justice and of stipend; to retain a stipend for the application of a Mass before it has been requested, unless the offerer, having been warned, ratifies the matter; to accept one stipend for celebration alone, another for application, unless it is certain that the other was offered for celebration alone; to receive so many personal burdens that you cannot satisfy them within a year; by means of stipends really, or in appearance, to trade or conduct commerce; to demand a stipend beyond the established tax; or, against the prohibition of the Ordinary, to be content with less.

2. The obligation of celebrating from a stipend is grave; nor does it cease even if the alms received have perished while with him who is held by the burden of celebrating. For a sum received, Masses, unless something else is demonstrated, are to be said in that number which the tax of the place where the offerer was dwelling has defined. Masses are to be said at the time expressly prescribed; or as soon as possible, if the cause urges; and by him who undertook the burden of celebrating, always within a moderate time, so that for two Masses of the same intention, three days beyond a month can be awaited. An undue delay of one or another month is considered grave. The quality and place of the Mass to be said in themselves remain in the power of the celebrant. Ordinaries and Superiors who entrust Masses to others to be celebrated must take care, as far as they are able, that they are celebrated as soon as possible. They are also to be distributed as soon as possible by the distributor, especially since in itself the time of celebration begins from the distribution having been made. Toward the end of the year, the remaining burdens of Masses are to be handed over to the proper Ordinaries. For Masses which are celebrated after the manner of manual, that is, elsewhere and by others than the documents wished, since they draw their origin from a foundation, the civil year is considered in itself; for others, the year from the day of the burden undertaken, without prejudice to a diverse will of the offerers.

One obliged can transmit Masses to priests above every exception, even outside the diocese, unless, as regards Masses received in churches subject to him, the Ordinary has forbidden this (response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 19, 1921); but the transmitter remains obliged until he has obtained testimony of the accepted obligation and of the stipend received. Except with the express assent of the offerer, manual offerings are to be transmitted entire; and he who has secretly retained part of the stipend has violated justice and must restore: thus the truer opinion. The excess which certainly was given with consideration of the person can be retained. In Masses after the manner of manual, in itself it is enough to remit the alms of the place where they will be celebrated, if the rich alms partly holds the place of a dowry.

3. Obligations of Masses and their execution are to be annotated accurately by all priests; and the books of the rector of a church are to be reviewed each year by the Ordinary, by himself or through another.

Those who offend are to be struck by grave penalties by Ordinaries. But the Holy See can condone faults and remit obligations which it has the means of compensating from the treasures of the Church.

He who, distracted, has interrupted the series of a Gregorian thirty should have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary, unless he otherwise compensates or supplies the defect.

— 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.

— Appendix V belongs to this section. I. On the Fast to Be Observed. Historical matters: cf. Appendix V.

Current Law. 1. Rule. By the proper precept of celebration, a priest is obliged not to celebrate unless the natural fast has been observed from midnight (the notion of this will be explained below, where there is treatment of Holy Communion).

Therefore it cannot be said with Suarez, Sacr., 1 p., d. 82, and Lugo, Euchar., d. 15, n. 69, that to celebrate without the fast is nothing more than to communicate without the fast, and that one dispensed for communicating after food has been taken is dispensed for celebrating in the same way.

2. Exceptions. Yet the severe law itself of not celebrating otherwise than with the natural fast observed admits certain exceptions, which are of two kinds:

a) it can happen that a priest, distracted or compelled by some other necessity, has taken some food. Then the question is posed: when can he nevertheless sacrifice?

b) it can also be asked when it will be lawful for a priest deliberately, with foresight and intention of saying Mass, to take some food beforehand.

a) To a priest who from distraction or from another cause of necessity has already broken the sacred fast, they permit the sacred rite:

alpha) on account of a divine precept which more urges. Wherefore for completing the sacrifice, without doubt the fast can and must be postponed. The case will chiefly occur if no fasting priest is found who can complete the sacrifice of another priest who, after the consecration of at least one species, has been stricken by illness; or if he used water or oil instead of wine, and notices this after a part of the water or oil has been consumed; or if, after the ablution has been taken, he finds a consecrated host or consecrated fragments which cannot decently be kept until another sacred rite. And he who after the consecration remembers that he is not fasting must himself, not fasting, complete the sacrifice;

beta) for administering Viaticum to someone who has not yet satisfied the divine precept of Viaticum, several also permit celebration by a priest not fasting;

gamma) so that scandal may be avoided, if a priest, not fasting, cannot break off before the consecration the sacred rite which he inadvertently began, without danger of scandal or infamy. Indeed it can happen that on Sunday a pastor cannot omit the sacred rite without note. And then this other reason will easily concur, that several will be about to fail to go to a nearby church in order to satisfy the precept, although they can and must do so. Yet on December 2, 1874 (Collectanea P. F., II, n. 1425), the Holy Office denied that scandal or the wonder of the people could ever suffice so that a second Mass be celebrated by a priest not fasting. But we judge that this scandal is to be understood of the very admiration of the people, not of the common sin of the people;

delta) by epikeia not a few concede that a newly ordained priest who, distracted, secretly violated the fast can celebrate his first Mass, if circumstances of very grave inconveniences concur.

b) It is not lawful for a priest deliberately to take some food with the intention of afterward celebrating except from a license given by the Holy Office, to which recourse must be made through the Ordinary; or from a license given by the bishop or quasi-bishop (the Vicar General does not suffice) in a more urgent case in which recourse cannot be made in due time to the Holy See; or from a license obtained from the local Ordinary, if he has obtained a general faculty from the Holy Office.

But this license or dispensation can be given by the bishop or quasi-bishop only to those priests who, because of the people, must either repeat Mass or celebrate it at a later hour, and who at the same time cannot observe the law of the Eucharistic fast without grave harm. Grave harm can arise from weak health, or from excessive labor of the sacred ministry, or from another reasonable cause, for example, from a distance to be overcome, from the trouble of making a journey. Only liquid food can be permitted, with every intoxicating drink also excluded. Every scandal must be removed. Scandal here is chiefly the offense of the pious, which will be avoided if a sufficient interval between the taking and the Mass is required, and if every public use of the faculty is prohibited. Finally, the Holy See must be informed as soon as possible about the dispensation given. Nor is there hope of obtaining from the Holy Office itself a dispensation on account of the private devotion or utility of the priest.

Therefore no more after the letters of the Holy Office of March 22, 1923 (A. A. S., XV, 151, or Periodica, XII, 29), by which these dispensations are announced or conceded, than before, will a dispensation be able to be presumed. Yet if in some case truly necessary for the people a Mass cannot be celebrated unless the priest has taken something of liquid food, and there was no opportunity of recurring to the bishop, he who uses epikeia does not seem to be condemned.

— II. On the State of Grace. A priest conscious of mortal sin is forbidden to celebrate without sacramental confession first made. "But if, with a confessor lacking and necessity urging, he shall have celebrated, after eliciting an act of perfect contrition, let him confess as soon as possible" (c. 807).

By this precept of the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 7 and canon 11, where those teaching the contrary are excommunicated, the Church defined the proving which from the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11, is necessary: whether it is a mere declaration of divine law, which many with Suarez hold to be more probable, or whether it is an ecclesiastical law, as others seem to think.

He is not conscious of mortal sin who, in an antecedent confession, did not accuse a mortal sin without his own fault, nor he who seriously doubts about grave fault committed. These, therefore, are not held by the precept of confession. But must he elicit or try to elicit an act of contrition who prudently fears that he is outside the state of grace? This is very greatly to be commended; yet the authority of those who think that probable disposition suffices does not permit us to urge a strict obligation (cf. d'Annibale, III, 249 [7]).

Often circumstances will bring moral certitude of grace or of sin. Wherefore one who is too fearful will have to be dissuaded from confession, which by efficacious admonition, or even by injunction, must be imposed on a priest of more lax conscience.

But three things are required so that one who is conscious of grave sin may celebrate without confession: an urgent necessity of celebrating, lack of a confessor, and an act of perfect contrition.

1. In itself, deprivation of a stipend does not furnish an urgent necessity, but danger of death does, necessity of consecrating a host for one dying, note or infamy to be avoided, necessity of celebrating so that on a feast day the people can be present at the sacred rite, or, for a pastor, celebration from office, by which it can happen that he is held even on individual days. For some, the reason of celebrating suffices if otherwise the priest could hear no Mass; but we think this less to be approved (cf. however Lugo, Euch., d. 14, nn. 115, 116 against Suarez, De Sacr., 1 p., s. 4, d. 66). He who during celebration commits a mortal sin or remembers one cannot morally depart. In a solemn Mass perhaps he could confess to the assisting priest without note, but the obligation of that confession, as we shall see below, is not so certain, because of the rubric.

2. A confessor is judged to be lacking, not if he to whom the priest is accustomed and would desire to confess is absent, or he to whom he would confess more devoutly or more usefully, but a) if none is present and, considering the circumstances of a weak, older, or business-burdened person, or of roads, weather, and short time, an absent one cannot be approached without great difficulty. Such narrowness of time can exist that not even a priest separated by fifty paces from the one about to celebrate is judged to be at hand. Formerly they thought that sufficient inconvenience in itself was had by a distance to be overcome of one league or of one and a half. Now the very ease perhaps arising from the railway must be attended to. Lehmkuhl, II, 206; b) if none is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or an excommunicated vitandus, or one to whom you cannot confess without grave harm of your own or another's. The case of a confessor who lacks jurisdiction in reserved matters is now no longer posed, since, as will be explained later, in that necessity any confessor can absolve directly from reserved matters, though sometimes with the burden of having recourse to the Superior. If narrowness of time does not permit a complete confession, some, as d'Annibale, III, 708, oblige the priest to accuse what he can; but others, and deservedly, doubt about that obligation of a half confession, at least if the priest can excuse himself by the act of perfect contrition and the mind of confessing fully as soon as possible.

By inconvenience alone which is extrinsic to confession the priest is excused from the obligation of placing confession before the sacred rite. Wherefore neither the infamy which the penitent himself or his religion suffers with the confessor takes away the obligation: for harm of reputation follows the obligation of confessing in itself, and it is not great because of the holiness of the seal. Yet particular circumstances of familiarity, of veneration by which an old man is honored by a younger cooperator, can make that harm extraordinary, and beget such shame as is morally invincible.

Wherefore some then excuse a priest who in necessity celebrates with perfect contrition and with the mind of confessing as soon as the opportunity of another confessor is given.

But it can happen that a fragile priest applies the matter to himself much more benignly, and excuses himself from confession, even if he has the option of four or five confessors, because he lives under the same roof with all, is known to all, etc. What remains for a prudent confessor to do, if the penitent priest reveals such things?

In this matter those things must be carefully distinguished which we can positively permit, which we can tacitly tolerate, and which we must openly condemn and prohibit. If extraordinary circumstances regard one or, at most, another confessor, with every other opportunity removed, we can positively permit that confession, otherwise necessary, be omitted, especially since true scandal of a younger person who would know the enormous sin of an old man is easily added. But if there has been an option of several, we cannot approve the omission of confession. Yet in a special case, where the penitent has formed his conscience in this way and would easily fall into moral despair, after the fact it will be lawful to be silent or to leave the matter to his conscience. But if there is question of a priest who indulges an evil habit, so that not rarely he celebrates without confession, his excuse must be rejected. But it is necessary that among the confessors whose opportunity he is accustomed to have, he choose one to whom he may candidly open the wound of his soul. And sometimes it will be easier for him to put before confession a conversation with the confessor whom he has chosen, to declare himself miserable and in need of help. A confessor somewhat human will be moved by the other's confidence itself so that he receives such a penitent with that benignity which removes every difficulty of confession. We must act thus because we cannot tolerate the habitual omission of that precept, which would not lightly diminish both reverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament and horror of mortal sin.

3. One excused from confession can never neglect contrition. But what if he cannot even be contrite? Some, cited by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 262, then remain very doubtful. But better do others, for example Lehmkuhl, II, 207; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 916, answer from the mind of St. Alphonsus that at least supposed contrition is available to all. For, as we said in the prior special part, an act of charity is not to be thought difficult, and he who truly renounces sin easily complies with the grace of perfect contrition.

A priest who, with confession omitted although in itself necessary, has celebrated the sacred rite, is bound by a new precept of confessing as soon as possible. As soon as possible, that is, within two or three days, and therefore not neglecting an occasion of confession, if some single one is foreseen to be going to occur within three days. And it is manifest that confession must be made before another sacred rite, unless the same necessity of celebrating and the same lack of a confessor persist.

This precept is imposed on the priest who was legitimately excused from confession, but not on him who has celebrated sacrilegiously: the law would burden this one without utility with a new sacrilege; nor probably does it oblige him who only after consecration remembers the state of sin, since he is excused by ignorance or inadvertence rather than by necessity. Indeed d'Annibale, III, 409, admits what Lugo, d. 14, n. 746, judged sufficiently probable, that he is excused from the special precept of confession who, scarcely after Mass has begun, remembers or has committed mortal sin. These appeal to the rubric of the Missal, De defectibus, 8, 4, which prescribes only this to him who in the celebration itself remembers that he is stained by mortal sin: "let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing and satisfying."

— III. On Separate Celebration. In the Latin Church concelebration of several is forbidden, except in the Mass of ordination of priests and consecration of bishops. Cf. n. 287. Yet in Portugal, in the Bragan rite, concelebration occurs on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord.

— IV. On the Condition of Once in the Day. Except on the day of the Lord's Nativity and the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, on which all have the faculty of sacrificing three times, it is not lawful for a priest to celebrate several Masses on the same day, except from an apostolic indult, or by power made by the local Ordinary (c. 806, §1).

From common law, the Ordinary cannot permit the same priest more than two Masses on the same day; and this only on a feast day of precept, and because he judges that a notable part of the faithful cannot, because of scarcity of priests, be present at Mass.

The faculty on the day of the Nativity of the Lord is circumscribed by no condition. For, after a word had been had with His Holiness, on January 26, 1920, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, contrary to what it had answered on April 11, 1844 in Barcelona, ad 3 (Decr. auth., n. 2802), declared that it is lawful for a priest who, because of weakness of sight or another just cause, celebrates by apostolic indult a daily votive Mass or Mass of the dead, to say precisely the same Mass three times. We understand the same Mass, either the votive to which he is accustomed, or even, from the mind of the legislator, one of the three assigned for that day (A. A. S., XII [1920], 122). But he who wishes to celebrate only one Mass must take the Mass which corresponds to the hour of celebration: that is, in the night the first, at dawn the other, by day the third (Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 19, 1875 [n. 3354]; February 13, 1882 [n. 3767 ad 21]). He who has preferred to read only two, which remains whole for him (Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 19, 1875, n. 3355), if he separates them, should observe the hour of celebration, if he says one at night, the other at dawn or by day. If he says both by day, he seems able to omit either of the two prior ones.

But on the day of the Commemoration of All the Dead, one of the three Masses must be applied gratis in suffrage of all the faithful departed; another also gratis, according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff; the third can be said for a stipend at the judgment of the priest. But free option is made to the priest of choosing which of the three Masses he says for a stipend, which according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff or for all the dead (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, October 15, 1915 ad 1; A. A. S., VII, 479, 480). But the gratuity of the two Masses is understood so severely that not even by title of extrinsic labor can anything be received; nor can the intentions prescribed on the day of Commemoration be deferred to another day, with a triple stipend received on the very day of the Commemoration of All the Dead (Sacred Congregation of the Council, cited response ad 3 and 4).⁽¹⁾ But he who celebrates only one Mass must celebrate the first, which is proper to the day; he who reads only two should add to the first that which is prescribed in the second place. But it is always whole to accept a stipend for one Mass; and he who reads only two must apply the other of the two for all the faithful departed, so that the sacred rite must then be offered according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff only when three Masses are celebrated (cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 28, 1917; A. A. S., IX, 186, 187). This can be observed everywhere, even if certain regions, for example Latin America, previously had to apply two Masses in suffrage of all the faithful departed (cf. Ferreres, II, 487).

And what on the day of the Nativity of the Lord was conceded to those who can read a daily votive Mass or one for the dead, that they might say the same Mass three times, was also permitted on the Commemoration of All the Dead by the same response of January 26, 1920.

As to the power of the local Ordinary: a feast day of precept is understood as a feast day on which the people in reality must hear Mass (Genicot, II, 239; Noldin, III, 206); a notable part of the faithful supposes at least twenty persons (d'Annibale, III, 405 [55]). Yet centenary custom can permit more, if the Ordinary judges that it cannot prudently be removed (c. 5) (cf. Simenon, Revue ecclesiastique de Liege, 1923, p. 263).

This necessity of the people is chiefly had when one priest administers two distant parishes, and there is no other who may celebrate in the other place; or even when, for various causes, the whole people cannot morally come together for a single Mass (these causes occur frequently).

This faculty of binating on account of the necessity of the people is real, so that whatever priest takes the place of him to whom it was made can use it. And it ceases with the necessity. Wherefore, if another priest happens to arrive who wishes to say Mass at the usual hour of the people, the faculty of binating is in reality taken away. But in a case of unforeseen necessity, as if one of two priests who are accustomed to celebrate in the parish suddenly falls ill, and no other can be supplied, the priest who remains, provided he is fasting, can presume the license of the Ordinary (Noldin, III, 206).

Indults of the Holy See are conceded so that on days not of precept but of great devotion the whole people might be able to hear Mass, or so that in a region where the occasion of Mass is rare, all might be able to use the occasion of a passing priest. More benign indults have sometimes been conceded to certain pious communities. Because of extraordinary causes, as in the recent war, or in Mexican regions, three Masses have been permitted.

Before the Code, many bishops were accustomed to obtain quinquennial faculties by which, besides many other things, they were permitted to concede bination for causes other than the necessity of the people who otherwise could not satisfy the precept of hearing Mass. But those indults have not been restored. Indeed, concerning the faculty of permitting bination, there is complete silence in the new formulae of broad faculties which the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide is accustomed to lavish on Vicars and Prefects Apostolic.

In an extraordinary necessity of celebrating so that a sick person constituted in imminent danger of death can be refreshed by Viaticum, several authors concede bination.

⁽¹⁾ R. P. Cappello thinks that this severity by which remuneration of extrinsic labor is excluded has been tempered by canon 824, §2, by which, in a general manner, some remuneration from an extrinsic title is permitted to be received by him who celebrates several times in a day. Yet canon 6, 2°, by which confirmed old law is to be understood as before the Code, seems to stand in the way of this interpretation, so that the general concession of c. 824, §2 by no means impedes the special prohibition for the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful. But, according to Ferreres, II, 487, in Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca, regulars can receive three stipends and seculars two on that day.

We divide this section into three chapters: 1. on the nature and effects of the sacrifice of the Mass; 2. on the obligation of celebrating Mass; 3. on the requisites for celebrating Mass.

1585. Those things having been set forth which regard the Most Holy Eucharist insofar as it is a Sacrament ordained to our sanctification, it remains that we speak of this most august mystery insofar as it is a SACRIFICE, by which we worthily exhibit to the divine Majesty that supreme worship which befits It. The oblation of this Sacrifice is called Mass, drawing its origin from the word Mission, either because through this Sacrifice Christ is sent to us, or because an oblation is sent by us to God; or because formerly, when the part which precedes the Offertory had been completed, the catechumens were dismissed; or finally, because, the Sacrifice now completed, the people are dismissed with these words: Ite, Missa est.¹

Those things which come to be said concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass we divide into two chapters: in the first we shall speak concerning this holy Sacrifice considered in itself; in the second concerning those things which regard its celebration.

Three things are to be investigated here: 1. what the true notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass is; 2. what its value and fruit are; 3. how its application is made.

1586. DEFINITION. Sacrifice, taken in the broad sense, is every action which redounds to the glory of God, as prayer, almsgiving, etc., according to that Ps. 6: "Offer to God the sacrifice of praise"; and Ps. 50: "A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit." But strictly it is defined: An oblation made to God through the alteration of some thing as a sign of supreme dominion, from legitimate institution. Thus commonly with Suarez, etc.²

"It is said 1. Oblation for the genus, in which it agrees with other oblations. 2. Made to God, because sacrifice is offered to God alone, not to the Saints. 3. Through the alteration of some thing; for alteration distinguishes sacrifice from other oblations. 4. As a sign of supreme dominion; for by such a sign we signify that we and ours can be destroyed by God as by the supreme lord, just as the thing offered is altered. 5. From legitimate institution; but this institution requires three things: that the sacrifice be made by public authority, that it be made in the name of the whole people, and that it be made by a priest as legitimate minister."³

DIVISION. "On the part of the end, sacrifice is distinguished into latreutic, which is offered merely in homage to God; eucharistic, in thanksgiving; propitiatory or expiatory, unto remission of fault or punishment; impetratory, for obtaining goods from God."⁴

1587. Principles. I. The Mass is a true and properly so-called SACRIFICE, by which the BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST is offered to the divine Majesty, under the species of bread and wine. - This is clear 1. from Trent, which, sess. 22, can. 1, defined thus: "If anyone has said that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice, or that to be offered is nothing other than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema." - It is clear 2. from reason; for all the conditions of a true sacrifice are verified; for the Mass is: 1. an oblation made to God, since Christ Himself is offered to God the Father; 2. this oblation is made through the alteration of some thing; for through consecration and through consumption, as will be said below n. 1589, q. 1, 4th opinion, Christ is mystically slain, and thus there is had the alteration required for sacrifice;⁵ 3. it is made besides as a sign of supreme dominion; for the Sacrifice of the altar is principally ordained to this end; 4. it is made from legitimate institution; for it was instituted by Christ with respect to that which pertains to the essence of the Sacrifice.⁶

"But the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, instituted in the law of grace, by which all ancient sacrifices ceased, perfectly contains the meanings of all of them: for it is latreutic in recognition of divine excellence; it is eucharistic in thanksgiving; it is impetratory of graces through the merits of Christ; it is expiatory of sins, because through it God is moved to mercy."⁷ See a fuller proof and exposition of this doctrine among the Dogmaticians.

1588. II. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is THE SAME IN SPECIES as the bloody Sacrifice OF THE CROSS, both because the same victim is offered by the same highest and eternal Priest, and "because the formal reason of sacrifice is the same, since it is offered in protestation of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Therefore the Sacrifice of the altar, as Trent says, does not indeed differ essentially from the Sacrifice of the cross, but only accidentally, with respect to the manner of offering, namely because: 1. In that of the cross real death intervened; in this mystical death intervenes. 2. That was offered by the Redeemer Himself on the altar of the cross; this is offered by the ministry of priests. 3. That was meritorious, because there the price of our redemption was paid; but this is not meritorious, since here only the merits of Christ are applied."⁸

1589. Questions. Q. 1. In what does the ESSENCE of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist?

Resp. Several opinions are present. The FIRST says that it consists in consumption alone, because in that alone is found destruction or alteration of the victim. The SECOND says that it consists in the oblation which follows the consecration, with these words: "Whence also mindful," etc., since sacrifice is nothing other than oblation. These two opinions do not seem probable. - The THIRD teaches that it consists in consecration alone, because in consecration all things required for sacrifice are present, namely the oblation, which is already made in exercised act, and the destruction or alteration of the victim, while by force of the words the Body is now separated from the Blood of Christ. But the consumption pertains to the integrity of the sacrifice, and therefore is prescribed by divine law. "This opinion," says St. Alphonsus, "is indeed very probable and more common, but the FOURTH opinion seems to me more probable, although in Tome I I adhered to the third, which Bellarmine, Tournely, etc., hold. This opinion says that the essence of the Sacrifice consists partially in consecration and partially in consumption; for in the consecration the victim is placed, and in the consumption it is consumed." The principal reason is "because true and real sacrifice requires the true and real destruction of the thing offered, which is not had except through the consumption of the priest, by which the sacramental existence of Christ is destroyed."⁹

Q. 2. Whether for the essence of the Sacrifice the consecration OF EACH species is required?

Resp. It is controverted. - The first opinion denies, because through the consecration of one species whole Christ is placed and offered, and at the same time the death of Christ is already represented, and there is had the oblation and slaying of the victim. But the second opinion, more common and more probable, affirms; and the reason is that, from Trent, sess. 22, cap. 1, the Sacrifice of the Mass ought to be commemorative of the bloody Sacrifice of the cross, according to that saying of Christ the Lord: "Do this in commemoration of me." Now, if only one species were consecrated, although by force of the words the bloodless body would be placed, or although by consumption the slaying would be had, nevertheless the shedding of blood would not be expressed, which happens only through the consecration of each species, through which the separation of blood from body is properly signified, according to the saying of St. Cyril: "By the sword of the words the blood is separated from the body." - By this very reason, each species ought to coexist at the same time upon the altar: wherefore, from the Rubric, if each cannot be had, the Mass is to be interrupted, unless one species has now been consecrated.¹⁰

Q. 3. Who is the OFFERER of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Resp. 1. The principal and primary minister is Christ, since, as Trent teaches in the cited place, cap. 2, it is the same one offering through the ministry of priests who offered Himself on the cross; nor otherwise could Christ be called a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

2. The secondary minister and one subject to Christ, who nevertheless truly and properly offers, is every and only validly ordained priest, although a heretic, excommunicated, degraded, etc.¹¹

3. But the Church and the faithful concur in the Sacrifice either generally or specially; whence they can be said morally to offer it.

And indeed the Church offers generally through priests, as her delegates; whence in the Canon it is said: "This therefore the oblation of our service, and also of Thy whole family," that is, of the Christian people. - But the faithful concur specially in the Sacrifice when they promote it in a special manner, for example by ministering, or assisting, and most of all by giving a stipend.¹²

1590. "VALUE is that efficacy which the Mass has from the dignity of the one offering and of the thing offered, for conferring goods on the one offering and on those for whom it is offered. But the FRUITS are the goods themselves which, in view of the Sacrifice, God confers. Whence value differs from fruit as cause from effect."¹³

The fruits or effects of the Mass are distinguished from a threefold head: 1. on the part of the thing; 2. on the part of the cause; 3. on the part of those participating.¹⁴

1591. I. On the part of the THING, the EFFECT of the Mass is fourfold: namely adoration and thanksgiving in relation to God; remission both of sins and of punishments, and impetration of goods in relation to men. It is clear from the definition of the Church in Trent, sess. 22, can. 3, where it is said thus: "If anyone has said that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not propitiatory; or that it profits only the one consuming, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema" (cf. n. 1599).

Moreover, concerning the effects of the Mass, or concerning the fruits in relation to men, let the following be noted: 1. Remission of sins, whether mortal or venial, is not made immediately through the Sacrifice of the Mass, but only mediately, insofar namely as "God is immediately placated in view of this Sacrifice, and then is moved to conceding the gift of penance, through which sins are immediately deleted."¹⁵ 2. Remission of punishments is conceded immediately to just men for whom the Sacrifice is offered. For the Tridentine Synod teaches that "the souls detained in Purgatory are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the altar." But the dead cannot be helped in another way than by immediate remission of punishments.¹⁶ 3. The impetration of goods regards especially spiritual goods: actual graces are immediately obtained for performing acts by which habitual grace increases. Secondarily temporal goods are obtained, insofar as these profit the soul.¹⁷

It is asked: Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass produces its effects INFALLIBLY?

Resp. Affirmatively, unless there is an obstacle in the subject. But it works according to the measure of the good disposition which is in the man; or, if it concerns a Mass for the dead, according to an ordination of divine Wisdom unknown to us.

1592. II. On the part of the CAUSE, a twofold FRUIT is distinguished: namely ex opere operato, and ex opere operantis. The fruit ex opere OPERATO is that which is conferred in view of the merits of Christ: it is the principal fruit, independent of the probity of the celebrant, and it is conceded equally whether the Mass is celebrated by a good or by a bad priest. And the same must be held concerning the prayers which are said in the Mass: they avail, although they are said by a priest who is a sinner; for he prays in the name of the Church, which is always pleasing to God. The fruit ex opere OPERANTIS is that which is conferred in view of the merit and devotion of the celebrant: it is an accidental fruit, and is greater or lesser according to the holiness of the celebrant. Hence Pope Alexander says: "The more worthy priests have been, the more easily they are heard for those for whom they cry out."¹⁸

1593. III. On the part of those PARTICIPATING, a fourfold FRUIT is had, namely: most general, general, special, and most special.

1. The most general fruit, called general by others, is that of which all the faithful, both living and dead, somehow become participants. For since the minister, in any Sacrifice whatever, acts in the name of the Church, the Sacrifice profits the whole Church.

2. The general fruit, included by others under the special, is that which falls to the faithful who assist at the Sacrifice, or concur in it by ministering vestments, lights, hosts, etc. This fruit does not depend on the intention of the celebrant, but on the devotion of the faithful, who by their own peculiar work become, in a certain way, offerers.

3. The special or ministerial fruit is that which falls to those to whom the Mass is applied. This is ordinarily intended where speech is made simply of the fruit of the Mass.

4. The most special fruit is that which falls to the priest alone celebrating, and it is altogether proper to him.¹⁹

1594. It is asked: Whether the Sacrifice of the Mass has INFINITE value?

Preliminary note. It is certain that the Sacrifice of the Mass in itself, and with respect to sufficiency, is of infinite value, by reason of the infinite dignity of Christ, who in this Sacrifice is victim and principal offerer.

But the question is whether the Mass, even from the institution of Christ, has infinite efficacy or virtue of working?

Resp. A twofold opinion is present. - The first, probable, denies, and teaches that the Sacrifice was instituted by Christ in such a way that it produces a determined effect, namely so that, applied for several, it profits each less than if it were applied for only one. It is proved from the prohibition of the Church, which forbids that satisfaction be made by one Sacrifice for several asking for Mass. But the second opinion, more probable, affirms, and holds that the VIRTUE of the Sacrifice of the Mass is infinite both intensively and extensively. It is called intensively infinite insofar as it can cause a greater and lesser fruit according to the measure of the disposition of the man; but extensively insofar as it can produce infinite effects, and profit one alone and infinite men in this way. But with respect to EFFECT, the Sacrifice of the Mass is said to be finite, not now from its institution, but from the finite capacity of men for whom it is offered. The reason of this opinion is that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same, although offered in a diverse manner, as the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was of infinite value. Whence, according to this opinion, the Mass profits equally when applied for several as if it is applied for one. But the prayers of the Mass instituted by the Church profit someone more if they are applied to him singly than if by the priest to several: as is evident from the Council of Constance, where this article of Wyclif was condemned: "Special prayers applied to one person by prelates or religious do not profit the same more than general prayers, other things being equal."¹

1595. Let it be noted for practice: 1. However much this second opinion seems true, nevertheless it is not licit by one Mass to satisfy several stipends; for the stipend is not given as the price of the fruit of the Mass, but for the support of the minister; whence, since he already has support from one stipend, the title fails why he should receive another. The same is evident from proposition 10 condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices, and to offer one Sacrifice."²

2. The probability of the first opinion standing, the priest cannot, for a certain stipend, apply an uncertain fruit of the Mass. Yet, the Mass having been applied for him who gave the stipend, he can apply it at the same time for himself, or from charity for others, not indeed absolutely, but under condition: namely with the right of him preserved for whom he is held to apply the Mass³ (cf. n. 1601, q. 10).

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.

We shall deal, in a twofold article, with the celebration of Mass, and we shall treat: 1. concerning the obligation of celebrating; 2. concerning the things required for celebrating rightly.

The obligation of celebrating can arise from various titles, of which three are commonly numbered, namely: 1. the priesthood itself; 2. the office committed to the priest; 3. the stipend accepted from the faithful. Now concerning each, several things.

1602. Christ "commanded His Apostles and their successors in the priesthood that they should offer, by these words: Do this in commemoration of me, as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught."⁹ Therefore it is of faith that a precept of sometimes celebrating was imposed by Christ on the universal priestly Order.¹⁰ But whether this precept extends itself also to individual priests is disputed among the Doctors. Wherefore let there be the following:

1603. Questions. Q. 1. Whether individual priests, by reason of the Order received, and independently of any other title whatever, are held UNDER GRAVE obligation sometimes to celebrate?

Resp. 1. Some deny, scandal being excluded, which nevertheless they say is easily had if a priest abstains from celebrating for a long time, say for six or eight months. Wherefore, at least by reason of this danger, that opinion must scarcely be called practically probable.

Resp. 2. The far more common and more probable opinion affirms that individuals are held both by divine law and by ecclesiastical law. - The DIVINE precept is gathered from the words of Christ: Do this, etc., since no probable reason is present for restricting the precept to the priestly Order in general. Likewise from the words of the Apostle: "For every Pontiff... is appointed... that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." But the ECCLESIASTICAL precept is proved from cap. Dolentes 9, de celebr. Miss., where Innocent III vehemently reprehends priests "who scarcely celebrate the solemnities of Masses four times in the year."¹¹ St. Thomas gives the reason of this opinion, saying:¹² "Each one is held to use the grace given to him, when it has been opportune, according to that (2 Cor. 6): We exhort you that you not receive the grace of God in vain. But the opportunity of offering Sacrifice is attended not only by comparison to the faithful of Christ, to whom it is necessary to minister the Sacraments, but principally by comparison to God, to whom, by the consecration of this Sacrament, Sacrifice is offered. Whence to a priest, even if he does not have care of souls, it is not licit altogether to cease from celebration."

Q. 2. How often IN THE YEAR is each priest held to celebrate?

Resp. 1. Under grave obligation each one is held to celebrate only three or four times in the year, namely on the more solemn Feasts, as the far more common opinion affirms. - Indeed, many say that it suffices if the priest celebrates three or four times in the year, on any days whatever, provided due distance is observed, so that he does not abstain beyond six or eight months. And this opinion is conformable to the decree of the S. C. Conc., issued in the month of November 1696, where it is said: "One who, without a just cause, has not celebrated three or four times in the year, sins mortally, and can be punished by the Bishop."¹³

Yet others require more, and say that all priests are obligated to celebrating on individual Sundays and Feasts, especially the more solemn. But on account of the mere probability of this opinion, a strict precept cannot be asserted.

Resp. 2. Under light obligation priests are held to celebrate MORE OFTEN; as is gathered from these words of Trent: "Let Bishops care that these, that is, priests, celebrate Mass at least on Sundays and the more solemn feasts." Wherefore, says St. Alphonsus, "I would not know how to excuse from light fault that priest who could celebrate daily, with one day of the week excepted on account of reverence, and without any just cause, but only on account of sloth, abstained from celebrating. For the priest celebrates not only for himself, but also for the good of the whole Church and of the Christian people, whose minister and intercessor he has been constituted, according to that of the Apostle: Every Pontiff, etc."¹⁴

Let the words of the Seraphic Doctor be carefully weighed by the priest, especially by the scrupulous one: "The priest who DOES NOT CELEBRATE," he says, "as much as is in him, deprives the Trinity of praise and glory, Angels of joy, sinners of pardon, the just of help and grace, those existing in Purgatory of refreshment, the Church of Christ of spiritual benefit, and himself of medicine and remedy against daily sins and infirmities."¹⁵

By reason of the office which they have undertaken, all Pastors of souls are held not only to celebrate Mass, but also sometimes to apply it for the people. - That this twofold obligation may become better known, let there be the following:

1604. Principles. I. All pastors of souls are held, and indeed under grave obligation, to CELEBRATE Mass on individual Sundays and feasts of precept. - For the obligations of the people and of the pastor are correlative; whence on those days on which the people are held to hear Mass, on the same days the pastor also is held to celebrate it, as is had from Trent, saying: "But if they have care of souls, let them celebrate Masses as frequently as they may satisfy their office."¹⁶ But if someone is legitimately impeded, he is held to supply through another, lest the people lack Mass.¹⁷ By accident, the pastor is held to celebrate also on days other than the aforesaid, for example if the necessity of consecrating urges for ministering Viaticum; likewise if, on the occasion of the nuptial blessing or of funerals, the faithful reasonably ask. For the Ritual itself insinuates that these be performed with Mass accompanying. Nor, however, is he held to apply the fruit of the Sacrifice, unless he accepts a stipend. Thus the Holy Office, September 1, 1841.

1605. II. All pastors of souls, similarly, under grave obligation, are held to APPLY Mass FOR the people on individual Sundays and feasts of precept. - This is clear from Trent,¹⁸ saying: "Since by divine precept it has been commanded to all to whom care of souls has been committed, to know their sheep, to offer Sacrifice for them, etc." Therefore the obligation of celebrating for the people is OF DIVINE LAW, according to that John 21:17, Feed my sheep; but the Church has defined more accurately to whom this obligation extends itself, on what days it urges, and how it is to be fulfilled. These things must now be investigated singly.

1606. Questions. Q. 1. WHO are the PASTORS of souls upon whom the obligation of applying for the people is incumbent?

Resp. 1. They are: 1. Bishops, after possession of the See has been obtained,¹⁹ administrators, or others marked by whatever title, who actually preside over a canonically erected diocese. Nor indeed are Capitular Vicars, the See being vacant,²⁰ or Vicars General held to this. - 2. Abbots having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction over clergy and over people with a separate territory.²¹ - 3. Pastors, whether secular or regular; whether removable or irremovable; whether they have suitable support or do not have it; although immemorial custom to the contrary were present, as Benedict XIV declared.²² 4. All those functioning in place of a pastor, such as both vicars-curate, to whom care of souls is so committed that habitual care remains with another, for example at Rome in St. Mary Major with the Chapter; and vice-pastors, or vicars, who, the parish being vacant, are deputed to preside over it.²³ But if someone has two distinct parishes,²⁴ or if a Bishop exercises the office of pastor, he is held to apply a twofold Mass.²⁵ Otherwise, however, if a Bishop rules two dioceses.

Resp. 2. Immune from this burden are priests who have only secondary or subsidiary care, as chaplains or cooperators of the pastor,²⁶ chaplains of Nuns,²⁷ chaplains of hospitals, colleges, and other places of this kind.²⁸ Likewise, titular Bishops are not bound by this law; nor Apostolic Vicars or missionaries, "provided it does not concern places in which episcopal Sees and parishes have already been canonically erected, and to which the Apostolic Vicar and missionaries have been sent to perform the functions of legitimate pastors." Thus the S. C. de Prop. Fide, March 23, 1863.²⁹

Q. 2. Which are the FEAST DAYS on which pastors of souls are held to apply for the people?

Resp. They are all those which are numbered in the list of Urban VIII (cf. n. 654, q. 3),¹ as is clear from the Constitution Amantissimi Redemptoris,² in which Pius IX brings forward these things: "By these letters we declare, establish, and decree that pastors and all others actually exercising care of souls ought to celebrate and apply the sacrosanct Sacrifice of the Mass for the people committed to them, both on all Sundays and other days which are still observed from precept, and also on those which, from the indulgence of this Apostolic See, have been removed and transferred from the number of feast days of precept, just as the curators of souls themselves were bound when the mentioned Constitution of Urban VIII flourished in its full vigor, before feast days of precept were diminished and transferred.... This one thing we except, namely that when the divine Office has been transferred together with the solemnity to Sunday, only one Mass for the people is to be applied by the pastor."³ Likewise, satisfaction is made by one Mass if the feast falls on a Sunday.

It is said Office together with the solemnity; for, if the solemnity alone is transferred, for example according to the privilege conceded to France and Belgium with respect to the feasts of Epiphany, Corpus Christi, Saints Peter and Paul, and the Patron of the place, and in several dioceses also with respect to the feasts of the Purification, Annunciation, Nativity, and Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mass for the people ought to be applied on the very day on which the Offices of the aforesaid Feasts are commonly recited in the Church, as is clear from various decisions of the S. C. of the Council.⁴

Q. 3. HOW must the obligation of celebrating for the people be satisfied?

Resp. Pastors of souls are held to fulfill this obligation:

1. On the established days, unless legitimate dispensation has intervened. In the Bull Cum semper, Benedict XIV conceded to Bishops the faculty of dispensing with pastors laboring under grave poverty, that on feast days they can apply for those giving a stipend to them, yet with the burden of celebrating on another day for the people. - But for a broader Indult, if grave reasons are present, recourse must be had to the S. Congregation OF THE COUNCIL.⁵

2. In the established place, namely in the parochial church, as is clear from various declarations of the S. C. of the Council.⁶ Nevertheless it has been declared:⁷ "A pastor legitimately absent on a feast day satisfies his obligation by applying Mass for his people in the place where he is staying; provided that another priest celebrates in the parochial church for the necessary convenience of the people, and explains the word of God." Nor indeed is it required that a solemn Mass be applied; a private Mass suffices.⁸

3. Through themselves; because it is a personal obligation, as the S. C. C. declared on September 25, 1847, in Mechlinien., doubt 4.⁹ Therefore contrary custom cannot, but only a canonical cause can, furnish a sufficient reason that they may be able to celebrate through another. But a canonical cause is judged to be: 1. grave infirmity; 2. legitimate absence; 3. obligation of singing the conventual Mass;¹⁰ 4. dispensation of the Superior. - But the celebration of a funeral Mass, although the corpse is present, is not a sufficient cause which can exempt from the personal burden.¹¹ Yet for suppressed feasts, of which no solemnity remains among the people, particular Indults are sometimes conceded, by force of which it is licit to remit the parochial Mass to the following day, if obsequies occur with the body present, or buried the day before, the blessing of spouses, etc.¹²

4. Those legitimately impeded are held to celebrate through others, because the obligation is not only personal, but at the same time real.¹³ Wherefore the S. C. C. declared: "A pastor in any way legitimately impeded from celebrating Mass is held to have it celebrated on a feast day through another, and applied for the people, in the parochial church; but if this has not been done, as soon as he can, he ought to apply Mass for the people."¹⁴

1607. The STIPEND of a Mass is called the alms which the faithful bestow on priests, that the Sacrifice may be offered to God for them or to their intention.

By reason of stipend, Masses are distinguished into adventitious and founded. ADVENTITIOUS or manual Masses are called those which, by reason of an offered stipend, are to be celebrated in a determined number. FOUNDED Masses are called those which, in perpetuity or at least for a long time, daily or on certain days, are to be celebrated and applied, by reason of a foundation, that is, of a good left to some ecclesiastical Institute with the burden that Masses be celebrated. Therefore the fruit of the foundation has the nature of a stipend.

These things having been premised, we shall speak: 1. concerning the liceity of a stipend; 2. concerning the office of one accepting a stipend; 3. concerning reduction and condonation of Masses.

1608. Principle. It is licit for any priest, even a rich one, to accept a JUST STIPEND for celebrating Mass. - St. Thomas brings forward the reason, saying: "The priest does not accept money as the price of consecration, but as the stipend of his support."¹⁵ And because even the rich are worthy of reward when they place some work worthy of price, it follows also that rich priests licitly exact a stipend.¹⁶

Hence, more probably, a priest who intends to offer principally on account of the stipend is not infected with the stain of simony, although he is not easily excused from venial sin, because the temporal thing is then accepted not as the price of the thing, but for the stipend of support.¹⁷

1609. Questions. Q. 1. What stipend is to be had as JUST?

Resp. "The just stipend of a Mass is not indeed the sustenance of one day, as some have said; for the priest, besides the action of sacrificing, can occupy himself in the rest of the day in preaching, teaching, and similar exercises, so that he may gain entire support; but it is that which has been fixed by the Bishop, or by custom, or at least by a prudent man, if a tax made by custom or by the Bishop is lacking."¹⁸ And this opinion is common and to be held from the declaration of the S. C. of the Council.¹⁹ - "Wherefore Roncaglia rightly says that if a testator left Masses to be celebrated, without the alms having been fixed, they are to be celebrated according to the common tax, or are to be taxed according to the custom of the place, as the S. C. C. also declared,²⁰ with account taken of a rich or small inheritance."²¹

Q. 2. Whether REGULARS are held under grave obligation to stand by the Bishop's tax?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion and from the decree of the S. C. of the Council,²² by which it was sanctioned thus: "The alms for any Mass whatever to be celebrated by Regulars in their churches is to be taxed by the judgment of the Ordinary, according to the custom of the region."²³

Q. 3. Whether it is licit for a priest to accept a stipend BELOW or ABOVE the tax?

Resp. 1. If only the law is considered, it is licit for a priest to obligate himself to celebrating Mass for a smaller alms, or below the tax; for anyone can yield his own right, and also celebrate without any stipend. But because remission of the customary alms can become damaging to other priests and in some way detract from the dignity of the Sacrifice itself, more probably it is licit for the Bishop to prohibit that an alms less than just be accepted, from the declaration of the S. C. of the Council.²⁴ "Wherefore, in the case in which the Bishop prohibits it, priests are altogether held to obey him." - Nevertheless, if someone knowingly has accepted smaller stipends, he ought to celebrate as many Masses as he promised, as the S. C. of the Council declared by order of Urban VIII in the year 1625;²⁵ nor can he licitly diminish their number, unless he acted ignorantly, as authors rightly concede.²⁶

Resp. 2. It is not licit for a priest to exact a stipend above the tax; for the Council of Trent commands Bishops that they altogether prohibit "importunate and ungenerous exactions of alms, rather than requests, and other things of this kind, which are not far from the simoniacal stain, or certainly from base gain."²⁷ Yet he can receive more, both from the spontaneous liberality of the giver, and the Bishop has no power to prohibit this, as was decided by the S. C. of the Council;²⁸ and from justice for extraordinary labor, for example for Mass to be celebrated at such an hour, or in such an inconvenient place. Whence requests are not illicit, indeed neither are agreements, provided they are just and moderate, and provided they are made without scandal.²⁹

Q. 4. Whether it is licit for one having faculty of celebrating twice in the day to accept a stipend for the second Mass?

Resp. Negatively, unless the Supreme Pontiff has indulged it.³⁰ It is clear from the Constitution Quod expensis of Benedict XIV, issued on August 26, 1748, and from various declarations of the S. C. of the Council.³¹ But neither is it licit to accept anything for the celebration alone, with the application remaining free. But for peculiar labor, for example by reason of a journey to a distant church, it is permitted, from the prudent judgment of the Bishop, to perceive something.³² - But under the aforesaid prohibition are not comprehended the three Masses which it is licit to celebrate on the solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord; for that repetition is conceded not from Indult, but from immemorial custom; whence it is licit to accept three stipends for three Masses.

But there are comprehended the two Masses which, from the concession of Benedict XIV, are permitted to be added in the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal on the day of the Commemoration of all the dead; unless somewhere another ancient privilege already existed.³³

1610. Principles. I. From acceptance of a stipend there arises an obligation OF STRICT JUSTICE to celebrate as many Masses as, by reason of the alms accepted, have been promised. - For, says Suarez, "there intervenes the true nature of justice, founded on mutual consent burdensome on both sides, which is explained by these words: I give that you may do; but this is a title of justice."³⁴

It is said to celebrate as many Masses, etc., since this 10th proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices, and to offer one Sacrifice." Moreover, the reason of the condemnation is both because the opinion which says that the Sacrifice is of finite value, both intensively and extensively, does not lack all probability; and because a stipend can be accepted only by the title of support; whence, one stipend having been accepted, the title for accepting another fails.

It is asked: Whether a priest OMITTING to celebrate a Mass owed either from stipend or from gratuitous promise sins gravely?

Resp. 1. He certainly sins gravely if the alms given is grave matter; and this is the unanimous opinion of authors. But according to the more probable opinion, he sins gravely also if the alms is only light matter. "The reason is that gravity of matter here is more probably to be measured not in order to the stipend, but to the fruit of the Mass, of which the one handing over the alms is deprived, to whom from privation of this kind grave damage certainly is brought."³⁵

Resp. 2. If he omits a Mass promised gratis, it is disputed. Others say that he sins gravely, on account of the reason just brought forward. "But others probably deny, because simple promise does not oblige under grave sin unless the one promising expressly obligates himself under grave sin.... But all agree that he sins gravely who omits a Mass owed from vow, or from the precept of a Prelate: because no one can doubt that this is grave matter in a vow or precept"³⁶ (cf. n. 628 and 1062).

1611. II. The obligation of celebrating from the acceptance of a stipend can, a peculiar stipulation being excluded, be fulfilled THROUGH ANOTHER; yet under this law, that the WHOLE STIPEND be handed over to him. The reason of the first is that, such stipulation being excluded, the obligation is only real, whence it suffices that the thing owed be furnished. - The reason of the second is that the priest "although he acquires ownership of the alms, nevertheless acquires it according to the will of those who give the alms; and he who furnishes the alms asks not only for a Mass, but also wishes that it be celebrated for such an alms; for a greater stipend makes him perceive richer fruit from the Sacrifice; and therefore this intention enters into the substance of the contract; therefore if the priest retains part of the stipend, he unjustly retains it against the will of the giver."¹ - And hence it is why the Church strictly prohibits that a priest who has undertaken a Mass to be celebrated with a certain stipend commit the same Mass to another to be celebrated, with part of the stipend retained for himself. Thus from the Decree of the S. C. C. approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII. And this 9th proposition 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 smaller stipend conferred on him, another part of the stipend retained for himself."²

Hence: 1. A procurator or executor of a testament is to be condemned for shameful gain, who causes Masses committed to himself to be celebrated where there is a smaller tax, so that thus he may retain the excess for himself.³ But an heir who, on account of an inheritance accepted, is held concerning Masses to be celebrated, can, if the place of celebration and the stipend have not been determined, commit them to any priests whatever to be celebrated.

2. He who, against the prohibition of the Church, retains part of a stipend for himself, not only sins, but is held to restitution. But this, according to the more common and more probable opinion, is to be made to the celebrant, "because, the burden having been transferred to him, the right also to the whole stipend is transferred according to the will of the lord."⁴

1612. From the aforesaid prohibition, namely that nothing be subtracted from the stipend, a threefold CAUSE can excuse: namely the will of the one bestowing the alms, the spontaneous yielding of the one undertaking the burden of celebrating, and concession of the Holy See.

1. The will of the one bestowing the alms excuses: for he can at will exceed the customary tax, either with the intention that the whole stipend fall to the celebrant, or with the intention that the excess fall to the one receiving. Nor, however, is it required that the one giving the stipend expressly manifest this intention of his. It suffices that from circumstances his will be morally clear. Hence, if for adventitious Masses a greater stipend is given, not so much in view of the Mass as of friendship, poverty, gratitude, kinship, etc., the priest can retain the excess for himself and commit the celebration of the Mass to another.⁵

As regards founded Masses, one must distinguish: if the intention of the founders was only that Masses be celebrated, the whole stipend is to be handed over to the celebrant. Thus from a recent decree of the S. C. C., in the Cologne case, July 18, 1868.⁶ But if by their mind they also intended to render better the incomes of the pastor or chaplain, the excess can be retained. And the same must be said, as is evident, if besides the celebration of Mass, other offices are to be fulfilled.

With respect to beneficiaries,⁷ it has been declared in the Bull Nuper of Innocent XII: "it is enough that the rector of a benefice, who can celebrate Mass through another, give to the priest celebrating a suitable alms, according to the custom of the city or province, unless something else has been provided in the foundation of the benefice."⁸ - The same must be said of a removable chaplain, "provided certain revenues for the chaplaincy have been established annually, and assigned perpetually to the chaplain; otherwise, however, if a certain alms is given to a chaplain of this kind for each Mass to be celebrated."⁹

2. The spontaneous and liberal yielding of the priest to whom the celebration is committed excuses; for just as he can remit the whole, so also a part. "Nevertheless, this is by no means to be admitted if you indicate the greater price accepted and ask the priest to remit it; or ask from him whether he consents that you retain a part; for then you cannot retain it, even if he agrees; for this in the Bull Quanta cura of Benedict XIV is asserted as an execrable abuse forbidden by several Pontiffs."¹⁰

3. Concession of the Holy See excuses. For the Roman Pontiff, by the supreme authority in which he has power in the Church, can concede that some part of the alms, the circumstances of things suggesting it, be retained. A concession of this kind in favor of poor churches was made through the Decree of the S. C. of the Council confirmed by Innocent XII. But in this Decree¹¹ it is read: "It is not to be permitted that churches and pious places, or their administrators, retain from the alms of Masses to be celebrated any portion, however minimal, by reason of the expenses which they undergo in the celebration of Masses, unless the churches and pious places have no other revenues which they can licitly expend for the use of the same expenses; and then what portion they will retain ought by no means to exceed the value of the expenses which necessarily must be undergone only for the very Sacrifice of the Mass; and nevertheless, even in that case, it must be cared for that from the monies which remain, expenses as above having been deducted, absolutely as many Masses be celebrated as had been prescribed by those offering the alms."¹² See also the Decree of the S. C. C., April 24, 1875.¹³

It is asked: Whether it is licit to EXCHANGE Masses, without unequal stipends being exchanged?

Resp. Such an exchange, principally if it is made by reason of retaining the greater stipend, seems to involve shameful gain, and therefore seems also to be disapproved: yet not under grave sin, especially if poverty excuses.¹⁴

1613. III. To make gain from stipends of Masses which are transmitted to others is most severely prohibited. For such a manner of acting very greatly dishonors the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice, and is a cause why this most august Sacrifice is held as of less account among the faithful. Concerning this matter these things are to be noted:

1. They are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff who "collect alms of greater price for Masses, and seek profit from them by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser price."¹⁵ These things have been more fully explained elsewhere (n. 1339).

2. The manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savors of shameful trade, and therefore is to be disapproved and, if there is need, restrained even by ecclesiastical penalties by Bishops, who, public invitations and rewards being employed, or in any other way whatever, collect alms for Masses, and to priests to whom they commit them to be celebrated, pay not money, but books or other merchandise. Nor can this manner of acting be made honorable because the Masses are celebrated in the due number, or because in this way help is given to poor priests lacking alms of Masses, or because the gain which is drawn from the exchange of merchandise with alms is expended not for the proper advantage of those collecting, but for the use and increase of pious institutions and good works. - Wherefore it is not licit to cooperate in a manner of acting of this kind, whether by handing over alms for Masses to those collecting, or by accepting the burden of celebrating Masses.¹⁶

3. Priests do not act illicitly who for Masses celebrated receive books or other merchandise in place of a stipend, any species of negotiation or shameful profit being excluded.¹⁷

But whether the moderators or administrators of religious newspapers are to be disapproved, who commit Masses to be celebrated to priests, retaining from their alms the price corresponding in the case to those same newspapers? To this question the S. C. OF THE COUNCIL responded:¹⁸ "Negatively, provided nothing is subtracted from the will of the founders concerning the quantity of the stipend, the place and time of the celebration of Masses, every studied collection of Masses being excluded, and the one to whom it belongs by law being informed concerning the completed celebration of the Masses, the matter having been mentioned to the Most Holy."

1614. IV. All CIRCUMSTANCES of celebration which the one giving the alms stipulated are to be observed religiously. - The reason is that a true contract, I give that you may do, intervened, which induces obligation.

It remains that certain particular things, both concerning adventitious Masses and concerning founded Masses, be weighed in this place.

1615. I. TIME OF CELEBRATION. Adventitious Masses must, under grave obligation, be celebrated either at the established time, or within a moderate time, unless the one offering the stipend consents to delay.

It is said 1. at the established time, if indeed it has been expressly determined. Yet delay to the following day seems able to be excused, unless the one asking for the Mass fixed this day on account of a grave cause, or also offered a greater stipend to this end.¹⁹

It is said 2. or within a moderate time, if indeed none has been fixed beforehand. But the moderation of time must be taken altogether relatively.

And indeed: 1. any delay is to be judged grave by which the one asking for the Mass would be frustrated in the intended end. Wherefore a priest sins gravely "if he omits, within a time suitable for celebration, a Mass asked for the obtaining of some urgent grace, say for a happy childbirth, for escaping danger, for winning a lawsuit, etc. The reason is that the circumstance of time then pertains to the substance of the thing asked; whence, that time having passed, the priest is held to restore the stipend, and to warn the giver concerning the Masses omitted at the suitable time."²⁰ 2. "In Masses for the dead, many theologians deservedly regard a delay of one month as grave."²¹ 3. In other Masses, a delay of two months is to be judged grave; wherefore satisfaction must be made within two months, with this exception: unless the Holy See has conceded a delay; cf. n. 1620.

It is said 3. unless the one offering consents to delay. For to one knowing and willing, no injury is done. Thus also the S. C. C. defined.²² - Now, such consent is presumed by the fact itself if someone offers many Masses, for example 200, to a priest to be celebrated by the priest himself. Not likewise "when Masses are handed over to a community of several priests to be celebrated; because then he who gives the alms for many Masses is presumed to wish them to be celebrated sooner. Yet this is not to be understood as though all the priests of that community ought to occupy themselves in satisfying Masses of this kind, but that they ought not to defer as long as would be necessary if those Masses were committed to one person. Hence, I say then the whole number can be distributed among the individuals of the community, or at least among the greater part of it, if it is more numerous; and this distribution having been made, the whole community will be able to satisfy within only as much time as would be conceded to each member of the community for satisfying his own proportion. For Holzmann well says that those committing these numerous Masses can easily foresee that the community has other obligations."²³

1616. II. PLACE OF CELEBRATION AND KIND OF MASS. The celebrant who does not observe the condition of PLACE sins more or less gravely, according to the greater or lesser repugnance of him who gave the alms. - Indeed, if the place was intended equally principally, for example the Holy House of Loreto, he is held to restore the stipend.

One obligated to celebrate at a privileged altar satisfies by using a personal privilege;²⁴ and he who celebrated without satisfying the obligation undertaken is not now held to restitution of the stipend, but only to gaining a plenary indulgence applicable for the dead.²⁵ Thus the S. IND. C., February 22, 1847. But before the fact, it is not licit so to establish with oneself. The same Congregation, July 24, 1885.²⁶

Not to observe the KIND of Mass, for example if you celebrate the Mass of the occurring feast for a votive Mass or of Requiem, even when this is conceded by the Rubrics, does not exceed venial sin, since the substance of the Mass is equally had; wherefore the celebrant can also retain the stipend. - But if for a just cause the priest has acted thus, for example for observing the Rubrics, he has sinned in no way.²⁷

The Eucharist has not only the character of a Sacrament, but also of a Sacrifice.

It must be treated 1° of the nature and virtue of the Sacrifice of the Mass; 2° of the application of the Sacrifice of the Mass; 3° of the obligation of celebrating Mass; 4° of the time and place of celebration; 5° of the manner of celebrating.

Sacrifice taken generally is thus commonly defined: The external oblation of a sensible thing with its destruction or change, made to God alone through a legitimate Minister, in protestation of his supreme dominion.

1316. Principles. - I. The Mass is a true Sacrifice of the new law.

II. The Sacrifice of the Mass perfectly contains the characters of all the sacrifices of the old law, or it is latreutic, etc.

III. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is certainly the same as the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, not only because the same victim is offered, but also because the formal character of Sacrifice is the same, namely through protestation of the supreme dominion which God has over life and death. Wherefore the Sacrifice of the Altar differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross not indeed essentially, but only accidentally, namely as regards the manner of offering.

These principles are proved and more broadly explained in Dogmatic Theology.

1317. Questions. - Query 1° In what does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist?

Resp. It is controverted. Not a few hold that the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the Consecration and partially in the Consumption, because in the Consecration the victim is placed, and in the Consumption it is consumed. St. Alphonsus holds this opinion as the more probable.¹

Query 2° For whom can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered?

It must be premised. In offering Sacrifice the priest acts in three ways, namely in the name of Christ, in the name of the Church, and in his own name. Those things which he does in the name of Christ comprise the essence of Sacrifice properly so called; but in the name of the Church he performs the ceremonies and pours forth the prayers which the Church prescribes for the celebration of this Sacrifice; but he acts in his own name insofar as the good and meritorious work which he places by sacrificing pertains to his person as such. - These things having been premised:

Resp. In general it can be offered for all for whom, at least as impetratory, it can be of profit. Hence:

1° Validly, at least in the name of Christ and in one's own name, it is offered for all, whether living or dead, except only the damned and infants dead without Baptism.

2° Validly and lawfully it is offered, and this in the threefold manner which we have described, for all living faithful, even for sinners not excommunicated, but for these only as regards the fruit of impetration.

3° As regards living excommunicated persons: a) Certainly it is lawful indirectly, even in the name of the Church, e.g. for their conversion, for the propagation of the Faith, etc., "insofar as their good results in the enlargement of the Church," as Lugo says. b) If there is question of the Sacrifice to be offered directly and in particular for some excommunicated person, distinguish between those to be avoided, or nominally excommunicated, and the tolerated. - For those to be avoided it is lawful in one's own name, but not in the name of Christ or of the Church.² - But for the tolerated, of itself, it is more probably lawful even in the name of the Church, because the faithful are permitted to communicate with them, even in divine things.³ I said: of itself; because, if there is question of heretics and schismatics, several Responses of the Holy See prove that in practice this is not lawful, by reason of scandal, etc.⁴

4° In the name of the Church, neither publicly (as is clear of itself and all admit) nor secretly (as almost all hold) is it lawful to offer for the dead to whom ecclesiastical burial is to be denied, for instance for notorious heretics and schismatics. For under the name of burial are understood whatever suffrages are customarily made by the Church for the dead; but among these, Masses celebrated in the name of the Church, even secretly, hold the first place.¹

Note. What has been said concerning tolerated excommunicated persons holds more probably also concerning unbelievers.² It is confirmed from the following Response of the Holy Office, which, to the proposed doubt: "Whether it is lawful for priests to celebrate Mass for the intention of Turks and other unbelievers, and to accept from them alms for the application of Mass?" on Wednesday, 12 July 1865, responded: "Affirmatively, provided that scandal is not present, and nothing is added specially in the Mass, and as regards the intention it is established that nothing of evil, or error, or superstition underlies the unbelievers offering the alms."³ (10) p. 418.

Query 3° Of how many kinds is the fruit of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Resp. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold head, namely on the part of the one offering and on the part of the victim.

I. On the part of the one offering. Since the one offering is twofold, namely Christ and the priest, hence there is a twofold kind of fruit of the Mass on the part of the one offering. The first comes from Christ offering, and is said to be ex opere operato, because it is received in view of the merits of Christ and his promise. The other comes from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in view of the merit and devotion of the priest celebrating, and is called fruit ex opere operantis. - Hence it happens that a Sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is not of more profit than if it were offered by an unworthy Minister; because the Sacrifice, considered thus, is the work of Christ, and fruit flows only from the merits of Christ. Wherefore in this sense it can rightly be said that the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as the Mass of a good priest. But otherwise it must be said if the merit ex opere operantis is considered; for the worthier the priest is and the greater the devotion with which he is endowed, by so much the greater does the fruit of the Mass become.

II. On the part of the victim. Under this head a threefold fruit of the Sacrifice is distinguished, namely general, special, most special.

1° The general fruit is that which corresponds to the Sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, according as he operates in the name of the whole Church. And indeed all the Faithful, both living and dwelling in purgatory, perceive this fruit; but it is assigned to them only by way of impetration (by force of which contrition and thus also remission of sins can be obtained), not however, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of Sacrifices which are offered daily, any just man, even unknowingly, would obtain the remission of immense punishment, which appears incredible. - Those assisting at the Sacrifice, and a fortiori those cooperating in it, e.g. those serving the priest, etc., participate in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special manner. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is the more abundant, the greater the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating. Thus Gury; but St. Alphonsus calls the fruit accruing to those assisting and cooperating special (others call it middle or ministerial), nor does he distinguish between opus operatum and operantis. - But, as ministerial:

2° The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the Sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the Sacrifice as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing stands in the way, as it is satisfactory.

3° The most special fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators perceive from the Sacrifice a fruit entirely special, much more ought the priest who sacrifices to perceive this. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain.¹

Query 4° Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Resp. 1° It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ himself in this Sacrifice is at the same time the victim and the principal one offering. Wherefore the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price, made by Christ as primary offerer, who has infinite merit.

Resp. 2° It cannot be infinite as regards the application made to individual men, or as regards the effect or fruit. The reason is because creatures are not capable of perceiving infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or lesser, according as the disposition or capacity of him to whom it is applied has been greater or lesser.

But it is controverted whether the application of the fruit of the Sacrifice is restricted to a certain degree, or is made indefinitely according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered.

The sentence today, says St. Alphonsus, most common, and which speculatively seems more probable, contends that the application is made indefinitely according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered. - The reason is because the value of the Sacrifice is in itself infinite; hence of itself it can be applied to innumerable men, without being able to be exhausted. Otherwise the holy Doctor teaches in the work contro gli eretici pretesi riform., where he teaches that the fruit, from the will of Christ, is restricted to a certain degree.¹

Query 5° Is the Mass of profit to the dead from an infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Affirmatively. For Mass is usefully offered for the dead, as is established from Trent.² Moreover this cannot be done except from the promise of Christ, which is related in Matthew:³ This is my Blood ... which shall be poured out for many unto the remission of sins. It is established also from the words of the form in the conferral of Order: Receive the power of offering Sacrifice to God, and of celebrating Masses both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen. - Nevertheless temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a certain law, but it is of profit to them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall have pleased God to accept it. - See Perrone.⁴

Query 6° Is a Mass of Requiem of more profit to the dead than a Mass of the Saints?

Resp. Negatively as regards the substance, or on the part of the Sacrifice; but certainly as regards accidentals, or on the part of the prayers, whose defect devotion can supply. - St. Alphonsus,⁵ after St. Thomas.⁶

It must be noted here that a Mass of Requiem and in black can be applied for a living person, provided that he who gives the alms has not expressly declared the opposite.⁷

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.

This obligation can be considered under a threefold respect: 1° by reason of the priesthood; 2° by reason of office; 3° by reason of stipend.

1320. - I say: All priests, by reason of the Priesthood, are bound by divine law, under grave obligation, to celebrate at some time. This is proved from the words of Christ:¹ Do this in commemoration of me. By these words, according to the testimony of the Council of Trent, Christ commanded the Apostles and their successors to offer Sacrifice. Moreover, all priests in their ordination receive not only the power, but also the charge and office annexed to it, of sacrificing. Hence the Apostle:² For every Pontiff taken from among men is appointed for men in those things which are toward God, that he may offer gifts and Sacrifices. But in a grave matter anyone is gravely bound to execute an office undertaken. Therefore ... Thus St. Thomas.³ See St. Alphonsus.⁴

1321. Questions. - Query 1° How often in life or in the year is a priest bound to celebrate?

Resp. It is not clearly established. It seems more probable that he is not bound to celebrate except three or four times in the year, or on the more solemn feasts. Indeed it appears not improbable that a priest has satisfied his office if, on whatever days at last, he offers Sacrifice three or four times in the year.

Query 2° Is he excused from every sin who celebrates only four times in the year?

Resp. No. For he does not seem to be excused from some venial sin. Thus commonly according to the mind of Trent,² where it is said: "Let the Bishop take care that they" (Presbyters) "celebrate Masses at least on Lord's days and solemn feasts." Indeed Holy Mother Church desires that a priest offer Sacrifice on individual days, and pious priests are accustomed very rarely to omit it.

1322. - I say I. All Pastors of souls, by natural and divine law, are bound at some time to celebrate for their sheep. The reason is because they ought to feed them. This is also established from Trent,³ where it says thus: "Since by divine precept it has been commanded to all to whom the care of souls has been committed, to know their sheep, to offer Sacrifice for them," etc.

I say II. The same, by ecclesiastical law, are bound to celebrate for their sheep on all Sundays and on the days brought forward by Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX in the Encyclical Amantissimi Redemptoris, 3 May 1858 (see p. 87), from several Decrees of the Church, but especially from the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Cum semper.⁴ To this, however, not only secular Pastors are bound, but also Regulars; likewise those who for a time or removably, e.g. on account of the absence or infirmity of the Pastor, are deputed to supply his office, as Vice-pastors.⁵ Indeed a Pastor set over two parishes (but not a Bishop set over two dioceses¹) is bound, outside the case of an indult, to apply 2 Masses, unless the union of the two parishes is plenary and extinctive, so that from two parochial Churches there has entirely come to be one, by the extinction of the title of the other.² That burden belongs a fortiori to Ordinaries after possession of the See has been obtained,³ but not to Vicars Capitular.⁴ Missionaries, however, and Vicars Apostolic (provided there is not question of places in which Episcopal Sees and Parishes have already been canonically erected, and Vicars Apostolic and Missionaries have been sent to them to perform the duties of legitimate Pastors), and titular Bishops, are by no means bound to apply Masses, although from charity it is becoming that they do so. V. T. I. (§), p. 471.

Query. Is a Pastor or Bishop who is ill, or prevented from celebration for another cause, bound on feast days to celebrate for the people through another?

Resp. It must be answered affirmatively, because that burden is not merely personal, but at the same time real, not otherwise than the burden of preaching, which consequently can and must be fulfilled through another.⁶

1323. Principles. - I. A stipend or alms can lawfully be accepted for a Mass which one is not bound to read for another. For a stipend is not given as a price or compensation of the Mass, but as a means for the support of the Minister. This is also established from 1 Cor. 9. 13: Do you not know that they who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and they who serve the altar participate with the altar?

II. Priests are bound from justice to celebrate Mass and to apply it determinately according to the intention of those who have given the stipend for this. For there intervenes with them an onerous agreement, which, by the title of justice, must be observed not otherwise than in any other contract. Hence a priest who, whether through himself or through another Minister, omits to apply according to the intention of him who gave the stipend, is bound to restitution by strict right.

III. A priest cannot satisfy a double stipend by one single Mass, but for each one he must offer a distinct Sacrifice. The reason is, 1° because it is not certainly established that a Sacrifice offered for several persons profits each one as much as it profits when applied for one alone, although this is more probable to many; 2° because this very thing is established from the 8th proposition condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIII.

1324. Questions. - Query 1° What is judged the just stipend of a priest celebrating?

Resp. The quantity of a just stipend cannot be universally determined. It is lawful to require the stipend established by the Bishop or by custom.¹ To this rule even Regulars are bound to conform themselves under grave obligation, from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation cited by Benedict XIV.² - St. Alphonsus.³ And indeed the Bishop, at least as regards manual alms, can prohibit a stipend less than the established tax from being accepted (Benedict XIV⁴); that this not be done regularly is prohibited by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.⁵ - Nevertheless, just as through charity or friendship a lesser stipend can be admitted, so also from the liberality of the giver it is right to receive a greater one. Likewise, a priest can receive more for extraordinary labor, e.g. for a Sacrifice to be celebrated at such an hour or in such an inconvenient place, etc. - Nor is a priest to whom richer stipends are available obliged to accept those which correspond to the tax; for he would be obliged with his own loss.

Query 2° Does a priest sin gravely who, after receiving a stipend, delays celebrating Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because he violates a contract in a grave matter. This is also established from the Decrees of the S. C. C. in the year 1625. - St. Alphonsus.⁶

Query 3° What delay is judged grave?

Resp. It is controverted; certainly a delay which exceeds three months can seem grave. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus,⁷ against others who require an entire year. - But more probably a priest does not sin gravely who celebrates a promised Mass within two months. In Masses, however, which are to be celebrated for the dead, a delay of one month is reputed grave according to St. Alphonsus,¹ Salmanticenses, Lugo, etc. - Besides, the statutes of Bishops also must be attended to. Certainly, however, a priest sins gravely whenever "he omits to celebrate, within a time fitting to the circumstances, a Mass requested and promised for obtaining some urgent grace"; and therefore he who has accepted a stipend for a happy childbirth is bound to restore the accepted stipend if, even licitly, he has celebrated after the childbirth. - The will of the one giving the stipend must also be attended to; for when it is principally given for assisting the priest, and the burden of celebrating is not imposed so strictly, even a very long delay will be without fault.

"But that a more distinct account may be had of the obligation of accurately fulfilling the burdens of Masses, both manual and for an indefinite time, we decree that in each secular and regular church there be a catalogue or table of burdens, which have been imposed on them in perpetuity or for a certain and predefined time, and respectively accepted; and that in the same place in the sacristy books be kept, in one of which perpetual burdens of this sort or temporary burdens are to be inscribed, but in the other manual and adventitious Masses, together with a faithful and distinct notation of the subsequent fulfillment of both."²

Query 4° Does a priest sin gravely by omitting to celebrate a Mass, if the stipend accepted for it is not grave matter, e.g. $0.50?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, unless perhaps the stipend is so slender that the Mass appears to have been promised gratis. The reason is because he who gave the stipend suffers a notable spiritual detriment.³

Query 5° Whether, or in what way, does one sin who omits a Mass promised gratis?

Resp. 1° He does not sin whenever there is not truly a contract of promise, but the one promising only shows a benevolent purpose.

Resp. 2° More probably he sins only venially when a true promise has intervened; because a simple promise does not oblige under grave obligation, unless, as Lugo says, the one promising expressly obliges himself under grave obligation and from justice.

Query 6° Is a priest guilty of simony who celebrates chiefly with a view to the stipend?

Resp. See n. 353, Query 3°. Resp. ad 1.

1325. Query 7° Can a priest commit a Mass to another to be celebrated, giving a smaller stipend than he himself has received?

Resp. No, not indeed generally of itself, but because, on account of the appearance of base gain, the S. C. C. prohibited this by a Decree approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII, where these things are had: "Wishing to remove every damnable gain from the Church, it prohibits a priest who has undertaken to celebrate a Mass with a certain alms from committing the same Mass to another to be celebrated while retaining for himself part of the same Mass." Cf. proposition 9 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIII, and the Rescript of the S. C. C. 19 Jan. 1869.

Except: 1° If from the circumstances it is morally established that the excess of the stipend was handed over by a title extrinsic to the celebration, for instance friendship, gratitude, etc. 2° If another priest, entirely spontaneously and not having been asked, remits either part of the ordinary stipend or the excess. 3° If there is not question of manual Masses, concerning which alone the Decrees speak, but either 1) of perpetual Masses entrusted to some priest, or 2) of Masses to be celebrated by force of a rich legacy left to some priest for life, or 3) of those which are to be celebrated from a benefice or foundation, provided that the contrary has not been provided for in the foundation, a stipend is given according to the tax or custom of the place, and, if there is question of founded Masses, the one celebrating has been determined at least in some way, e.g. the Pastor for the time being. Thus St. Alphonsus,² to whom especially the S. C. C., in the Response of 29 Aug. 1860, refers for the solution of this question. See p. LXXXI. 7. The Response of the S. C. C. 18 July 1868 to the Archbishop of Cologne agrees as regards founded Masses. 4° If the remission is made, even when the one remitting has been asked, but with him consenting with complete liberty, especially in favor of a pious work, provided however: a) there is not question of a matter which by its amplitude and its annexed laws takes on the appearance of public business, which is illicit to clerics; and b) in the case of an extraordinary stipend, those who gave that stipend did not give it on that condition, that they should perceive more abundant fruit from the Mass, which indeed is to be presumed, unless the contrary is sufficiently established, as in the exception under 1°. - Besides, all the exceptions are to be understood with this addition: provided nothing is taken away from the will of the founders or givers concerning the place and time of the celebration of the Masses, any studied collection of them being excluded, and the one to whom it belongs by law being taught concerning the subsequent celebration of them.¹

It is pleasing here to append the following questions proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Council by the Archbishop of Cologne.

I. "Many Masses to be sung have been founded in parochial churches, ... to which a richer dowry has been assigned by the founders, to be administered by the church-provisors, from which Pastors, to whom by diocesan law and custom the celebration of these Masses belongs, receive an alms greater than the diocesan one, although no priest has expressly been called by the founders to celebrate these Masses."

II. "In celebrating Marriages and obsequies of the dead, stole-fees are not paid to the Pastor in a lump, but a certain portion is assigned for individual acts required for duly performing these functions. Hence a certain alms also, and one richer than for the other manual Masses, has been fixed by the Ordinary both for nuptial Masses and for funeral Masses; the celebration of which by law and custom belongs to the Pastors."

III. "Very many alms are offered through the year to Pastors by the faithful for Masses to be sung, either according to the tax constituted by the Ordinary, or even richer alms are spontaneously handed over."

"But since Pastors are sometimes hindered by illness, absence, and other sacred functions from celebrating these Masses themselves in the three cases set forth, other priests supply their places, whether attached to the same churches for their assistance, whose salary is paid by the church-provisors, or even outsiders. Hence the question arises whether Pastors in the same three cases must hand over the whole alms to the priests supplying their places; or whether rather it is lawful for them, retaining part for themselves, to give a smaller alms to the celebrant? But if in these cases part of the alms can licitly be retained by the Pastors, it is further asked whether the diocesan alms for low Masses must be paid by them to the priest celebrating, or rather that constituted by the Ordinary for sung Masses?"

To these questions the S. C., on 28 March 1874, rescribed: Let it be deferred; and the matter having again been maturely weighed and discussed in the meetings of the day 25 July 1874, judged that response should be made:

To I. That the whole alms must be paid by the Pastor for Masses whether low or sung.

To II. Since there is question of stole-fees, it is enough if the Pastor recompenses the celebrant with the ordinary alms. (11) p. 418.

To III. That the whole alms must be paid, unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess of the common alms was offered with regard to the person of the Pastor himself.¹

But these resolutions, since there is question of a matter of strict right, are valid also for our quasi-pastors. More easily, however, among us cases occur in which richer stipends are offered on account of a title distinct from the celebration of Masses, for instance for the support of a Missionary to whom certain or sufficient revenues are lacking.²

Query 8° Is he who retains part of the stipend bound to restitution?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is, 1° because this is deduced from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII related under this n. q. 7°. For the proposition said that a priest retaining part of the stipend can satisfy through another; therefore it follows that the contradictory is true, namely that he cannot satisfy; but satisfaction regards not only the honesty of the act, but also its justice; and he who does not satisfy an obligation of justice is bound to restitution; 2° because a priest dividing a stipend, if it is richer, acts against the will of the giver: for the will of the giver is not only that Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend. For he does not wish to bestow something gratuitously on him who does not celebrate. - Thus St. Alphonsus,³ saying that this opinion must be held. But to whom must restitution be made, namely to the one giving the alms, or to the celebrant? More commonly and more probably they teach that it must be made to the celebrant.¹

Query 9° Can a priest to whom a rich stipend is offered for today's Mass, having retained this, ask another priest to celebrate for him, promising to celebrate on the following day for the same person, who is going to be celebrated for an ordinary alms?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion denies it, since this cannot be excused from the appearance of base gain. - Thus St. Alphonsus, who says that Concina thinks thus rightly, adding however that he deservedly does not dare to condemn this as grave, and leaves it to the judgment of prudent men whether the poverty of the priest can excuse from every fault.²

The second opinion affirms, with Lacroix,³ and others.

Query 10° How are Masses to be taxed, for the reading of which a testator has left some sum of money?

Resp. They are to be taxed according to the custom of the place or the law of the diocese prevailing for private Masses. But if the testator himself has taxed them, but below the custom of the place or the norm of the received tax, they are to be taxed by the Ordinary according to the custom of the place, account being taken of whether the inheritance is rich or slender. - Thus the S. C. determines in St. Alphonsus.⁴

Query 11° Can rich priests accept a stipend?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because every worker, whether rich or poor, is worthy of his wage, as Christ himself says in Luke⁵ and according to the Apostle.⁶ Besides, if they could not accept a stipend, and otherwise are not bound to celebrate without a stipend, since there is no law which obliges them to celebrate thus, the faithful would often be unable to obtain Masses. This is established besides from the practice of the universal Church. - St. Alphonsus,⁷ and others commonly.

Query 12° What is to be said of booksellers and merchants who in various ways exchange Masses to be celebrated for books or merchandise?

Resp. The S. C. C., 9 Sept. 1874, to the following doubts:

1. Whether the manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savors of base traffic, and therefore is to be disapproved and, if necessary, restrained also by ecclesiastical penalties by their Bishops, who, by employing public invitations and premiums or in any other way whatever, collect alms for Masses, and to priests, to whom they commit them to be celebrated, repay not money but books or other merchandise?

2. Whether this manner of acting can be made honorable either because, with no diminution having been made, as many Masses are committed to be celebrated by the aforesaid collectors as correspond to the alms collected, or because through it poor priests, lacking alms for Masses, are assisted?

3. Whether collections and distributions of alms of this kind, even then, are to be disapproved and restrained, as above, by Bishops, when the profit which is drawn from the exchange of merchandise with alms is expended not for the private advantage of the collectors, but for the use or increase of pious institutions and good works?

4. Whether they concur in base traffic, and therefore are to be disapproved and even restrained, as above, who hand over alms for Masses accepted from the faithful or from pious places to booksellers, merchants, and other collectors of them, whether they receive or do not receive anything from the same under the name of a premium?

5. Whether they concur in base traffic, and therefore are to be disapproved and restrained, as above, who receive from the said booksellers and merchants, for Masses to be celebrated, books or other merchandise at the price of these, whether diminished or whole?

6. Whether they act illicitly who for Masses celebrated receive, in place of a stipend, books or other merchandise, with any commerce or appearance of base gain being excluded?

Responded: - To 1. Affirmatively.

To 2. Negatively.

To 3. Affirmatively.

To 4. Affirmatively.

To 5. Affirmatively.

To 6. Negatively.

Query 13° Can administrators of Churches retain something for themselves from the alms of Masses for the expenses of altars, lights, etc.?

Resp. No, unless the Churches have no other revenues; and then in no way must the value of the expenses which are necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass itself be exceeded, and nevertheless also in that case care must be taken that from the monies which remain, the expenses as above having been deducted, absolutely as many Masses are celebrated as were prescribed by those offering the alms.¹ See the exception in Ben. XIV, Inst. 56. n. 13.

Query 14° Must he restore who, after receiving a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a privileged altar, celebrates the same on another altar?

Resp. It seems it must be denied; but he will be bound to gain a plenary indulgence applicable to the dead, such as are the indulgences of the Way of the Cross, etc. For thus a proportionate compensation is bestowed. If, however, he has accepted a stipend greater than ordinary for this, he is bound to restore the excess. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² Elbel,³ Sporer.⁴

But if someone accepts a stipend in order that he celebrate in a certain place, e.g. at a miraculous Statue, or in a Chapel so that the people may hear Mass, or at a certain time, e.g. on the Sabbath day in honor of the Blessed Virgin, so that the place and time are intended of themselves, he cannot retain the stipend unless he has read the Mass at the prescribed time and place. The reason is because otherwise the one giving the stipend is judged to be gravely unwilling. But it is otherwise if the time and place are not intended of themselves.

Query 15° Is one obliged by stipend to celebrate on a privileged altar for a deceased person bound to read a Mass of Requiem, when the RITE permits it?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because this is required for gaining indulgences, as is clear from the declaration of the S. C. R. 11 April 1840.⁵

Query 16° Does one obliged by stipend to READ a Mass of Requiem, or a votive Mass, satisfy if he says another Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards a Mass of Requiem, unless the testator or the one giving the stipend has expressly asked that it be said (S. R. C. 5 Aug. 1662 and 12 Sept. 1840). - Negatively as regards a votive Mass (S. R. C. 12 Sept. 1840), unless either 1° the one requesting consents; or 2° a votive Mass has been accepted which is not permitted to be celebrated, as in honor of a Mystery or of a Blessed; or 3° a votive Mass has been accepted for a day on which it is prohibited, and cannot conveniently be deferred to a free day.

But truly, neither in the case of a Mass of Requiem expressly requested, nor in the case of a votive Mass, do they sin gravely who read the Mass of the day, and not even lightly in the excepted cases, or when a legitimate cause is present, such as however one's own devotion is not.¹ The reason is because the essential value is the same; but the privation of accidental value does not bring so grave a prejudice. Besides, the virtue of fidelity in the case does not oblige so gravely.

Note, however, that here there is not question of the cases treated under q. 14° and q. 15°, nor of Masses of Requiem to be celebrated in chant, concerning which, as also concerning this whole question, see de Herdt.²

Query 17° Can a stipend be received for a Mass to be celebrated on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because not all priests are bound on this day to apply Mass for all the dead, indeed they are not obliged to celebrate. Therefore they can apply Mass at will either for all the dead dwelling in Purgatory, or for some only. This is established from a Decree of the S. C.³ But this being posited, absolutely nothing stands in the way of a stipend being able to be accepted for Mass. - Thus commonly.⁴

Query 18° What does the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore counsel, and what does it prescribe, concerning Masses to be founded or founded Masses?

Resp. To the first. In the Appendix of the Council⁵ there is reported, and therefore by way of norm seems to be counseled, Decree LV of the Second Provincial Council of Cincinnati, which reads thus: "That a certain norm be established in this Province for foundations of Masses, ... the Fathers judged that foundations of this kind, especially when they are perpetual, because of the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, ... are to be admitted with great caution; also on this condition, that for a private Mass there first exist a fund of at least fifty scutata, but for a sung Mass, of one hundred scutata." ... But the best precaution will be if the agreement to be entered into with the founder contains at least these conditions: 1) that there will be no future obligation of celebrating, if the capital destined for this end for any cause whatever has either perished, or remained idle or unfruitful; 2) that the number of Masses to be celebrated be diminished proportionately, if for any cause whatever the revenues do not reach the stipend established by the founder; and therefore that not only the capital, but also the stipend of the Masses be determined, or at least that the faculty of reduction be reserved to the Ordinary; 3) that, if for any cause whatever the Church in which the Masses are to be celebrated should lack a priest, or even be destroyed, they can be celebrated in another to be designated by the Ordinary.

Resp. to the second. "Let foundations not be accepted without the previous assent of the Bishop, if there is question of a secular institute, or of the regular Prelate, if the foundation is made in favor of an exempt community."¹

Query 19° What is the reduction of Masses?

Resp. It is the diminution of the number of Masses to be celebrated, granted by legitimate authority for a legitimate cause.

It is said: 1° of Masses to be celebrated; for reduction regards the future, or Masses to be omitted; and, if there is question of Masses omitted, there is a condonation, which is reserved privatively to the Supreme Pontiff. If it is granted, a small alms is imposed, which is called composition. B. 14. d. S. L. 13. c. ult. n. 15.

It is said: 2° by legitimate authority, namely through the Supreme Pontiff, as the S. C. C. declared, with Urban VIII and Innoc. XII approving, in the Bull Nuper. - Nevertheless the Bishop also will be able to reduce if either a) as is plain of itself, he has obtained an Indult for this, in the use of which Indult, lest Bishops wander from the path, rules are suitably handed down by Benedict XIV in the book On the Diocesan Synod, C. ult. n. 22-29; likewise nn. 32. 34. 35; or b) the founder has given the Bishop this faculty;² or c) the imposed and accepted burden was made inter vivos by force of a convention entered into with the Bishop; for that convention includes this tacit condition: the thing, or capital, remaining in that state in which the fruits yield at least the ordinary stipend of a manual Mass. Therefore in the case of diminution of revenues or loss of the fund, the Bishop by his ordinary power, or by assuming the parts of a judge, can either rescind the contract, or at least reduce it to the terms of right.³

It is said: 3° for a legitimate cause, e.g. diminution of revenues, increase by the Bishop of the alms, etc.

1326. Principles. - I. It is lawful to celebrate daily, indeed it is laudable, unless the unworthiness of the celebrant, or a special prohibition of the Church, stands in the way. - But the Church prohibits Mass from being celebrated on the day of Parasceve, or Friday of the greater Week; likewise, that several Sacrifices be made in the same Church on Thursday and Saturday of the same Week. Necessity, however, permits several Sacrifices only on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, 1° on account of the communion of the sick, who cannot assist at the solemn Mass, and in whose favor it will be lawful to celebrate a private Mass, at the judgment, however, of the Bishop; 2° on account of a feast of precept occurring on the same Thursday in the Supper of the Lord (not on Holy Saturday), in which case not indeed all priests, but some, can and must celebrate a private Mass (not of the feast, but of the Supper of the Lord) before the solemn Mass, so that the faithful may not lack fulfillment of the precept. - But that single Mass, which is celebrated on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord and on Holy Saturday, cannot be celebrated in those Churches in which the Most Holy Sacrament is not reserved. This furthermore must be celebrated in chant (excepting parochial churches, if there is no cantor present, and then with the permission of the Bishop to be sought each year) and solemnly, unless ministers are lacking.¹

II. It is not lawful ordinarily, and with special privilege excluded, to celebrate before dawn, nor after noon, nor before the recitation of Matins and Lauds. For thus it is had in the Rubrics of the Missal: "A private Mass can be said at least after Matins and Lauds, at whatever hour from dawn until noon." - It is lawful, however, to begin Mass before dawn, provided that it is not finished before dawn. Likewise it is lawful to prolong the celebration beyond noon, provided that it be begun at least at noon; for the time of dawn and noon is to be taken not mathematically, but morally.¹ But dawn begins when the first brightness is diffused over the earth, or from the beginning of light, which is various for various places and times of year. Where there is no physical dawn, one should attend to when labor is accustomed to begin.² - By special privilege, which is conceded to our Bishops and through them can be communicated to priests and is customarily so communicated, it is permitted that Mass be celebrated for one hour before dawn and another after noon. See p. LXXI. n. 23.

III. In like manner, the privilege of celebrating one hour before dawn or after noon must be understood of one hour before or after the time assigned for others not privileged; otherwise the privilege would be of little profit.³

1327. Questions. - Query 1° Does he sin gravely who celebrates before dawn or after noon?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he much anticipates or prolongs the time established by the Church; but otherwise, if the change is slight; indeed, if a just cause is present, it will be without any fault. But what change is judged notable is controverted. According to the more common and more probable opinion, it is not held grave unless the celebration is begun a whole hour before or after the established time.⁴

Query 2° When is it lawful to celebrate before dawn or after noon?

Resp. 1° In necessity, e.g. that Viaticum may be administered to one about to die; in which case it would be lawful to celebrate even at midnight. 2° Where there is a reasonable custom, e.g. that workmen and servants may be able to hear Mass very early in the morning. 3° By force of a privilege granted by the Pope, or of a dispensation in a particular case from a reasonable cause by the Bishop, or for exempt religious by their Superior; 4° from the cause of a journey, for an hour after noon or before dawn; 5° likewise because of the funeral of some magnate, or of a sermon, or of a public supplication.⁵

Query 3° What sort of sin is it to celebrate Mass before the recitation of Matins and Lauds?

Resp. See n. 1100. q. 2°.

Query 4° Is it lawful to celebrate more than once in a day?

Resp. No, speaking generally according to the present practice of the Church, although formerly it was not prohibited. This is established from various places of Canon Law and from the Decree of Benedict XIV, 16 March 1746.

Except 1° the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, on which it is lawful to celebrate three Masses; 2° if a Pastor before the ablution is moved concerning communicating the sick, and has already consumed his Host, and no other fasting priest is found.¹

Query 5° When is it lawful to celebrate Mass twice in the day by permission of the Bishop?

Resp. With the Bishop permitting it, Mass can be celebrated twice (but never more than twice) by the same priest on Sundays and feasts of precept not suppressed, if necessity demands it, but not on account of custom alone, nor for the convenience of those who enjoy the privilege of a private oratory, nor on account of the poverty of the priest, nor where another priest is had through whom provision can be made for the necessity. Benedict XIV, Const. Declarasti nobis, and c. consuluisti (3) de celebrat. Miss. (L. III. Decr. T. XLI.). See p. LIV-LVI. n. 1-9.

Query 6° When is necessity judged to be present for celebrating twice in the day?

Resp. See p. LVI. n. 10. 11. See the broader faculty of our Bishops p. LXXI, LXXII. 23, and its declaration p. LVI. n. 11 sq.

Query 7° Can he who celebrates two Masses accept a duplicated stipend?

Resp. No; and Pius IX strictly prohibited this. - Thus S. C. C.² - Nevertheless, sometimes there is given, and to the Ordinaries of Missions there has been given, the faculty, for a just and grave cause, of permitting priests to receive a stipend also for the second Mass. Thus from the Letters of the S. C. de P. F. 15 Oct. 1863, which Rev. Th. T. IV. p. 101 exhibits. (12) p. 418.

Query 8° Would it be lawful in this case to accept a double stipend on this condition, that the other stipend be expended for a pious use?

Resp. No, without an Indult of the Supreme Pontiff, which indeed the Pontiff was unwilling to grant to the Archbishop of Cologne. - Thus S. C. C.³

Query 9° Is it lawful in the night of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate all three Masses before dawn?

Resp. No, without an indult, or unless one of the causes alleged above in this n. q. 2° is present, some one of which, however, will very rarely be present on this day. It is clear from the Rubric of the Missal: "The first Mass is said in the night; the second at dawn; and the third in the day"; likewise from the decree of the S. C. R.:¹ "A priest who celebrates only one Mass should read the Mass which corresponds approximately to the hour according to the particular Rubrics of the same day." S. R. C. 19 June 1875.

Query 10° Through what space of time ought a low Mass to last?

Resp. The general rule is that Mass ought neither to be longer than half an hour, lest those present be affected by weariness, nor shorter than a third part of an hour, because otherwise it will not be able to be celebrated becomingly. But you will not excuse from mortal sin a priest who, in making the Sacrifice, does not reach a quarter of an hour. St. Alphonsus² gives the reason, because in so brief a space he must necessarily commit two grave defects, one of grave irreverence toward the Sacrament,³ the other of grave scandal toward the people. But it is to be desired, and earnestly commended to all priests, that in making the Sacrifice they complete half an hour.

Query 11° How much time, when the Sacrifice has been completed, ought to be spent in giving thanks to God?

Resp. No entirely certain rule is given. But the more benign require at least a quarter part of an hour. - St. Alphonsus³ earnestly persuades that at least a half-hour be spent on this pious exercise by a priest, who ought to offer an example to the faithful.

1328. Principles. - I. It is not commonly lawful to celebrate except in a Church, and one consecrated, or at least blessed, which is not polluted, execrated, or interdicted. This is established from Trent.⁴

As regards a polluted and execrated Church, see below n. 1329. 4° and 5°. But concerning an interdicted Church, n. 1695-1697.

II. The Bishop can no longer, as formerly, grant the faculty of celebrating in the houses of private persons, nor in a private Oratory.¹ This is established from the declaration of the S. C. C. 27 May 1617 and 23 Jan. 1847, in which it is said that it is not lawful for any Bishop to grant licenses of this sort, not even for a passing act, and that this faculty is reserved to the Roman Pontiff. An exception is made, however, if great and urgent causes are present, and then only by way of a passing act. Thus S. C. C. 20 Dec. 1856.

1329. Questions. - Query 1° In what Oratories can Bishops give permission to celebrate?

Resp. By common law, in public ones, and, outside private houses, in every religious or pious place. But a religious place is said to be that in which works of piety and mercy are exercised, and which has been erected by the authority of the Bishop or of another ecclesiastical Prelate. Such are monasteries, palaces of Bishops, Seminaries, and the rest. ... But a pious place is called that which is constituted and deputed for works of piety and mercy, even without the authority of the Bishop or of an ecclesiastical Prelate. Hence any Hospitals and Orphanages whatever must be held as pious places, in which therefore the Bishop can permit the erection of an Oratory, even if places of this kind have been erected and constituted by the civil power. Thus S. C. C.² Add also Oratories which are erected in prisons, although prisons are not customarily called pious places.

Query 2° Is it sometimes lawful to celebrate outside a Church, or outside the Oratories of which in the preceding question?

Resp. Affirmatively, when grave necessity urges, e.g. 1° if the Church were destroyed or could not contain an immense multitude, and otherwise the people would lack Mass on a day of precept; 2° if a priest were making a long pilgrimage through deserted places or among unbelievers, and otherwise would be without Mass for a long time; 3° if an army were in camps, and otherwise would lack Mass on a day of precept; 4° in a port because of the arrival of a ship, lest those sailing, who cannot leave the ship, be deprived of Mass on a day of precept. Thus from various places of Canon Law according to St. Alphonsus. Nevertheless in these and similar cases the permission of the Ordinary is always to be sought and can be sought;¹ 5° concerning the permission of the Bishop in a private house in the case declared in n. 1328. II. and n. 1144. IV. 2°.

Query 3° What are the special faculties of our Bishops concerning the place of celebration?

Resp. "Of celebrating under the open sky and under ground, but in a becoming place, ... if it cannot be celebrated otherwise." See p. LXXII. n. 23.

Nevertheless this faculty, which can be and is customarily communicated to priests, as the tenor of it, "if it cannot be celebrated otherwise," already demands, is restricted by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore² in such a way that "no priest ... may celebrate Mass in private buildings, unless in stations, and in those buildings which the Ordinary has designated, or while he is actually giving attention to the exercises of a Mission" (understand: spiritual assistance furnished to some place "far from any church," through one or more days). Therefore it is not lawful to use that faculty in cities or towns in which churches have been erected.³

As regards the becoming place of which in this faculty, Kenrick⁴ observes that the following are not judged such: a) A room where a sick person lies, unless in the country far from every church it is necessary to celebrate for giving him Viaticum.⁵ b) Where a more suitable place can be had, the house where there is the corpse of a dead person; a room where some are accustomed to sleep; huts and the houses of laborers. c) The lower part of a house. d) A ship, unless by special Papal indult, which is customarily granted only to Apostolic Missionaries. Except the case of which in the preceding question 2° under 4°. e) A theater. f) Buildings of Freemasons. g) A room of an inn in which dances are customarily held. h) Churches of heretics or schismatics; for the so-called "Simultaneous" churches, in which Clement XI permitted the Missionaries of Rhaetia to celebrate, are consecrated churches of Catholics occupied by heretics, such as, so far as I know, we have none among us.

Query 4° In what way is a Church polluted, and in what way must it be reconciled?

Resp. to the first. A Church is polluted (likewise a crypt blessed together with it), when in it those indecent actions and injuries to a sacred place are done, on account of which it is reputed unbecoming that the immaculate Host be offered there, and that the divine Offices be celebrated, until it is reconciled. Hence it is polluted: 1° by voluntary homicide (therefore also by suicide), and one injurious, at least to the immunity of the Church, such as also is that which otherwise would be just by sentence of a judge; unless, however, a disturber of the republic could not otherwise be seized; 2° by a gravely culpable and copious shedding of blood from a blow or from a wound gravely injurious to the church; but it is required that he against whom the savagery of which under 1° and 2° is exercised, suffer it in the church itself, although perhaps the one wounding is outside the church, or although the shedding of blood or death follows outside it; 3° by a voluntary shedding of human seed, and one illicit either of itself or by reason of the sacred place. Therefore it would not be polluted by marital intercourse, when a just cause of having it was present, namely to avoid incontinence; 4° by the burial of an unbaptized person, or of an unbeliever. Except the infant of whom in n. 1699. q. 1°. R. 1°, and catechumens (ib.);¹ but not an infant already born (even of Christians) dead without Baptism (S. C. Immun. apud Craisson, Man. n. 4800); 5° by the burial of a baptized excommunicated person to be avoided; but not if he is indeed excommunicated, but not to be avoided. Concerning these things there is evidence from Canon Law. - See St. Alphonsus.² But that a Church be judged polluted, these crimes must be notorious either by fact or by law, either immediately from the beginning, or afterwards. They must also be committed in the Church itself, i.e. in some part of it from the upper vault to the pavement and from the interior door to the last wall; therefore not in the sacristy, etc.³

Resp. to the second. 1° If the Church was only blessed, it can be reconciled by a priest (according to the Roman Ritual to be delegated by the Bishop, which however is not of precept), with the customary prayers, and with water blessed for reconciling the Church by the priest himself delegated (or not delegated).⁴

2° But if that Church was consecrated, it must be reconciled by the Bishop himself, or by a priest delegated by the Pope [n. 1247. IV. b)], or among us by the Bishop (p. LXXI. 13), according to the rite of the Roman Pontifical. Nevertheless, if the divine Offices cannot be omitted without grave inconvenience, with the permission of the Bishop, if it can be had (otherwise without it), it can be celebrated.

Domestic Oratories in private houses, although blessed (which nevertheless cannot be blessed except with the blessing of a place or of a new house¹) and deputed to worship, are not judged to be polluted.

Query 5° In what way is a Church execrated, or an execrated Church rendered fit for worship?

Resp. 1° A Church is execrated when it loses its blessing or consecration. But it is judged to be execrated when it totally or for the greatest part collapses, or is destroyed, so that it must be built anew, at least for the greater part, or if the whole plastering of the walls, or at least the greater part, is removed at the same time.²

Resp. 2° An execrated Church is again to be blessed or consecrated, according to the rite and form prescribed for the blessing or consecration of Churches.

But a fixed altar loses its consecration when the table or upper stone is removed from its base, or through an enormous fracture of the table. - Thus S. C. R. 15 May 1819, 3 March 1821. Altars, whether portable or fixed, lose it when the sepulcher is opened or broken (or when the cover of this is broken or removed, but not precisely the seal),³ in which the Sacred Relics are placed, or through the loss of the same. - S. C. R. 23 Sept. 1848. Nor is it sufficient to bury other authentic Relics in them; but the altars are to be consecrated anew. - Thus S. C. R. 7 Dec. 1844. - Note, however, the faculty conceded to our Bishops and which through them can be and is customarily communicated to priests,⁴ of celebrating, ... even if the altar is broken or without Relics of Saints; ... if it cannot be celebrated otherwise. See p. LXXII. n. 23.

Finally, sacred vessels and other consecrated things are execrated when they lose their form, and can no longer serve for their use. - Hence also paraments lose their blessing if they become so torn or worn by use that by the estimation of moral men they can no longer be employed for their end, or if they lose their essential form even for the briefest time, so that, while this separation stands, they cannot serve for their use: hence also, if by one act a part is added which is greater than the blessed part; but not if they are repaired gradually by smaller parts. De Herdt.¹

Moreover, from what has been said it is clear what the distinction is between the pollution of a Church and its execration. When part of the Church is polluted, the whole Church is judged polluted, even together with the adjacent cemetery and fixed altars (but not portable ones). On the contrary, when a Church is execrated, the cemetery is not for that reason execrated, nor are the altars. L. VI. 368-371. (Z) p. 403.

Namely, 1° concerning the requisites for Mass; 2° concerning the Rubrics.

1330. - These things are required: 1° A stone altar, fixed or portable, consecrated by the Bishop, or among us, if there is question of a portable altar, while the See is vacant and in a case of necessity, by the Administrator of the diocese, or, while the See is full, by a priest deputed by the Bishop in places subject to him, with oils nevertheless blessed by the Bishop (see p. LXXII. n. 28 and p. LXXIII. n. 6). 2° A triple cloth made from linen or hemp; wherefore "the custom," says Kenrick,² "of certain persons using cloths which are found in the house in which they celebrate in the country is to be corrected, one shorter corporal cloth being placed beneath, or those which are not made from linen or at least from hemp. There is at least venial fault in not using three cloths; mortal fault in omitting all, unless grave necessity excuses." 3° Sacred vestments, or vestments blessed by the Ordinary, or among us by a priest delegated by the Ordinary by force of the faculty which is referred to on p. LXXI. n. 13. 4° A chalice and paten, consecrated by the Bishop, or among us by those deputed by him, as above 1°. 5° A linen corporal, or one made of hemp, blessed by the Ordinary, or among us by a priest delegated as above 3°. 6° A pall likewise linen or made of hemp. 7° A linen purificator. 8° A missal with a cushion. 9° A crucifix. 10° A double lighted candle made of wax. 11° A burse, silk veil, towel, cruet. 12° A male minister.¹ Cf. n. 1247. V. a).

But as regards candles, in strictly private Masses it is not lawful to light more than two wax candles, unless the Bishop celebrates, or unless there is question of low conventual or parochial Masses or similar ones on more solemn days, or of those which are celebrated in place of a solemn and sung Mass on account of celebrity and solemnity, or unless exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament requires a greater number. - De Herdt.²

1331. Questions. - Query 1° Must the altar cloths necessarily be blessed?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because this is prescribed in the Rubric, and whatever some may say, there does not appear a sufficient reason for acting against the Rubric, by which it is thus determined: "Let the altar be covered with three cloths ... blessed by the Bishop or by another having power." Nevertheless, to celebrate over a cloth not blessed does not exceed venial fault, and therefore, when a reasonable cause urges, it is without any fault, according to St. Alphonsus.³

Query 2° Is it mortal to celebrate without any sacred vestment, or without stole, or alb, chasuble, maniple, or cincture?

Resp. 1° It is mortal to celebrate without any sacred vestment, in every case, from whatever cause. 2° Likewise to celebrate without chasuble, or alb, or stole and maniple together. 3° Likewise to celebrate with an ornament notably unclean and torn. 4° More truly also to celebrate without maniple, or stole, or (outside grave necessity) with these not blessed. 5° Probably it is not mortal to celebrate without amice, at least for those who do not use it to cover the head, but only the shoulders. The same is also to be said of celebration without cincture; hence a reasonable cause easily excuses from all these things.⁴

Query 3° Is the color of the vestments of precept?

Resp. Affirmatively, because all Rubrics which regard ceremonies accompanying Mass are held as preceptive. Nevertheless this Rubric does not seem to oblige under grave obligation, unless scandal is present, e.g. if on Easter day or on another solemn day Mass were celebrated with black vestments. Hence a reasonable cause, which will often be present to our Missionary priests, can excuse from this precept.¹ (13) p. 418.

Query 4° What colors are required in the paraments?

Resp. Paraments of white, red, green, violet, and black color are required. - Paraments made of glassy silk fabrics are altogether reprobated. Thus S. C. R.² - Likewise paraments of various color (of the various colors) are reprobated, which, on account of flowers of each color mixed in, not a few wish could be used on every feast. These the S. C. R. prohibited on 23 Sept. 1837; and therefore they can represent only that color which is primary and predominant.

Paraments of yellow and blue color are altogether prohibited.⁴ Paraments made of gold cloth are tolerated, which, according to the use of the City, are used for white and red color, and, where custom is present, also for green; indeed they can be used for every color, if the silk threads intermingled with the gold threads are of the prescribed color.⁵

Query 5° Must the chalice and paten be consecrated under grave obligation or only under light obligation; and from what material are they to be fashioned?

Resp. to the first. They must be consecrated under mortal obligation; for the precept concerns a grave matter.⁶

Resp. to the second. From present discipline, at least the cup of the chalice must be gold, or silver gilt within.⁷ But in a case of necessity a chalice with a cup of tin could be used. The paten must be of gold, or of gilt silver.

Query 6° Do the chalice and paten lose consecration if the gilding perishes?

Resp. No, more probably, but after new gilding they need a new consecration, because gold newly added and not consecrated intervenes, immediately touching the Blood.¹ The Declaration of the S. C. R. agrees.²

But it is to be held as an abuse that a priest should wish to execrate the aforesaid sacred vessels before he hands them over to an artisan to be repaired or refashioned. Therefore they must be handed over to him, if there is need, without the priest trying to execrate them either by his own hand directly, or by means of some instrument. - Thus S. C. R.³

Query 7° Must the alb, cincture, amice, small altar cloths, corporal, purificator, and pall necessarily be made from linen or hemp?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards all. Thus from the practice and precept of the Church. - Nevertheless, from the general Decree of the S. C. R.,⁴ amices, albs, and small altar cloths, if any were made from cotton, could meanwhile be used until they were consumed, yet not to be renewed unless from linen or hemp. But it was prescribed that Corporals, palls, and purificators, after the lapse of one month from the publication of the Decree, could be used only if made of linen or hemp. - The cincture can also be made from wool or silk. S. C. R. 23 Dec. 1862. n. 5326.

Query 8° Must the pyx necessarily be consecrated?

Resp. See n. 1247. V. a). 4°.

Query 9° What sort of sin is it to celebrate with a corporal not blessed?

Resp. This cannot be excused from mortal sin, unless grave necessity of celebrating urges. But in a case of necessity one could even celebrate without a corporal. - Thus commonly.⁵ Likewise, unless the precept of hearing Mass urges, it is mortal to use a very unclean corporal; light, if it is not very unclean; but none, in this case, if another cannot be had.⁶

Query 10° Is it mortal to celebrate without a pall, or with a pall not blessed?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion, probable, affirms. The reason is because formerly the pall was the corporal itself with which the chalice was covered; hence, although now it is separated from the corporal, it is equally necessary as it.

The second opinion, itself also probable, denies. The reason is because today the same reason of reverence does not apply to the pall as to the corporal, which immediately touches the Sacred Species. In necessity, when the pall is lacking, a purificator or burse can be used to cover the chalice.

Query 11° Is it lawful to use a pall covered with silk cloth and woven with gold?

Resp. Affirmatively. For although this is prohibited, nevertheless, at the request of several Bishops of Gaul, it was granted that it can be used. Hence to the question: Whether, notwithstanding the Decrees issued by the S. C. R., it is lawful to use a pall covered on the upper part with silk cloth and woven with gold? The S. C. responded: It can be permitted, provided that a linen pall joined underneath covers the chalice, and that the upper cloth is not of black color, nor displays any signs of death.²

Query 12° Must the purificator be blessed?

Resp. No. See n. 1247. V. a). Indeed, if a purificator cannot easily be had, it is probably lawful to celebrate without it, and in its place a clean small towel can be used, which afterwards is not to be used for profane use.³

Query 13° What sort of sin is it to celebrate without a minister?

Resp. It is mortal according to all. Nevertheless, Doctors commonly say that it is lawful to celebrate without a minister when the necessity of administering Viaticum urges. Others concede the same, that the people may hear Mass of precept.⁴ - Yet to our Bishops and to priests to whom it is communicated by them, there is the faculty "of celebrating ... without a minister, ... if it cannot be celebrated otherwise." See p. LXXII. n. 23. (14) p. 418.

Query 14° Can a priest ever celebrate with a woman responding?

Resp. Affirmatively, if necessity urges, especially among nuns, provided the woman responds from afar, and does not immediately minister at the altar by presenting the cruets, etc.; for this could not be excused from mortal sin, because the Church altogether forbids women to minister to one celebrating.⁵ - This is confirmed by a Decree of the S. C. R.⁶

Query 15° Is it mortal to celebrate without a cross; and what sort of cross ought it to be?

Resp. to the first. No; for this does not appear grave, wherefore a reasonable cause excuses even from venial sin. - Thus commonly the Theologians.

Resp. to the second. The Cross which is required in the celebration of Mass ought not to be small, but to stand out among the candlesticks, so that the priest and the people can easily and conveniently look upon it. Thus Benedict XIV, c. Accepimus, 16 July 1746. "In Missions, however," says Kenrick,¹ "necessity brings it about that a Cross not very large is used; but care must be taken that, as far as can be done, it be conspicuous to the people." He adds that, in a case of necessity, which however is to be guarded against, a small cross attached to a Rosary can be used. If on the altar on which Mass is celebrated there is a large statue, or a painted or carved image, in which the Crucified One obtains the first place, this suffices. - S. C. R.² - If Mass is celebrated on an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is publicly exposed, the cross can be exposed or not exposed according to the custom of places. - Thus Benedict XIV, Const. cited. - A crucifix is not required with such great rigor as a Cross.³

Query 16° What sort of sin is it to celebrate without light, and is it ever lawful?

Resp. to the first. It is mortal to celebrate without any light at all.⁴

Resp. to the second. In one case it is lawful to complete the Sacrifice without any light, namely when, after the Consecration has been completed, the light is extinguished and no other can be had; for then the reason of completing the Sacrifice urges.

Query 17° Is it lawful to celebrate with candles made from another material than wax, or with one wax light?

Resp. to the first. No, except in the case of an Apostolic indult, or of necessity, e.g. lest one dying lack Viaticum, or the people lack Mass of precept; and St. Alphonsus⁵ reproves this as a mortal sin. With the former part of the response agrees the declaration given to the Bishop of Charleston. S. C. R. 10 Dec. 1857.⁶

Resp. to the second. No, likewise with the more common and more probable opinion; but if it is done, it does not exceed venial sin, and any reasonable cause excuses from every fault; wherefore, when the other wax candle is lacking, a priest could celebrate even from mere devotion.⁷

Note. Kenrick¹ observes that in Missions the cushion to be placed under the Missal cannot easily be had; the cloth or antependium almost nowhere among us; for cruets, any vessels whatever can be used in Missions.

1332. - Priests ought to observe with the greatest care and solicitude the laws of the Church which pertain to the manner of celebrating Mass, since among all sacred things this is the most sacred of all, and therefore worthy of the greatest reverence.

1333. Questions. - Query 1° Are all the Rubrics of the Mass preceptive?

Resp. 1° According to the common opinion, all Rubrics which are observed within the Mass are preceptive, since they regard so sacred a thing. But they oblige under grave or under light obligation according to the gravity or lightness of the matter, as will be said below.²

Resp. 2° But some Rubrics which are observed outside the Mass, that is, before or after the Sacrifice, are merely directive, as e.g. the washing of hands after Mass and the prayers for preparation or thanksgiving.³

It is controverted as regards the prayers which by the Rubric are to be recited while the vestments are put on; but with the common opinion it must be held, says St. Alphonsus,⁴ that their omission is venially culpable.

Query 2° Can an infirm priest celebrate, although he cannot observe all the Rubrics?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he omits only a few and lighter ones, especially if he celebrates privately. Indeed several authors of grave note permit an infirm celebrant even to use a staff, if he needs it, etc.⁵

Query 3° Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass?

Resp. 1° It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, so that the Sacrifice begun remains truncated, unless a very grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire, or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the priest, omitting the Consecration of the chalice, could consume the Host already consecrated, or carry it away with him by fleeing. But if he has completed both Consecrations, he should immediately consume both Species, if he can; or if he cannot, he should carry them away with him to a nearby place to be consumed most quickly.¹

Resp. 2° It is lawful to interrupt accidentally, namely by interposing something for a just cause before the Canon: 1° on account of a sermon after the Gospel, on account of prayers to be recited for the dead (which nevertheless, just as also those which are prescribed by the Ordinary, must among us be recited before or after Mass²), on account of proclamations of Banns to be made, or on account of a procession to be received, etc. 2° In favor of a Prince arriving, or of a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. Then, if the oblation has not been made, the priest can begin anew so that they may hear the whole Sacrifice. 3° If the priest remembers some impediment, e.g. that he is not fasting, or that he is not in the state of grace, or that he is irregular, provided that the Mass can be broken off without scandal or note.³

Resp. 3° Nevertheless, it is not lawful to interrupt, even accidentally, once the Canon has been begun, and a fortiori once the Consecration has been completed, except from a very grave cause. Hence Mass can always be interrupted, indeed must be, if a necessary Sacrament is to be administered, i.e. Baptism and Penance; likewise Extreme Unction or Viaticum, when these are to be administered for this reason, because absolution could be given only doubtfully (n. 1226. q. 2°. R. 1°). Otherwise, between the Consecration and Communion, it is not becoming, unless there is question of Viaticum, and provided that in that case the celebrant ought not to take off the sacred vestments, nor lose sight of the altar.⁴ - Without a just cause, a notable interruption is mortal.⁵

Query 4° What is to be done if a priest, overtaken by illness or death, cannot complete the Sacrifice?

Resp. 1° If the priest fails before the Consecration, nothing is to be done by another priest, because the Sacrifice was not properly begun.

Resp. 2° But if he fails after the Consecration, even of only one Species, then another fasting priest, if he is present, must supply; if no fasting priest is present, another, even not fasting, should supply and complete the Sacrifice; because the precept of procuring the integrity of the Sacrifice urges more gravely. Indeed even an irregular or excommunicated priest would be obliged to supply. Nevertheless, if another priest could not be found immediately, after one hour has intervened, more probably he should no longer be sought, because moral union would be lacking, and therefore it would not be judged the same Sacrifice. But if a priest overtaken by illness while celebrating can complete the Sacrifice after some interruption, he himself will complete it better than another, even if he is not fasting.

1334. - Resolves. 1° It is illicit to celebrate with the head covered. This is established from c. Nullus de Cons. dist. 1. And indeed according to the common opinion it is mortal to celebrate the whole Mass with the head covered; but to celebrate with a skullcap (calotte) up to the Canon, contempt and scandal being excluded, is only venial; indeed probably it is without even venial fault, although it be done without dispensation up to the Canon only from a reasonable cause and in a private place, or even in a public place, if the reason is manifest to those present, and the priest cannot celebrate without notable inconvenience. Nevertheless it is illicit to celebrate the entire Mass with the head thus covered without Apostolic license. Thus expressly St. Alphonsus,² after others. - Craisson, Man. Jur. Can.³

2° It is illicit by common law to celebrate with a false head of hair (wig), because by it also the head of the celebrant is covered. Thus from the Decree of Innocent XI, in which moreover Bishops and Apostolic Nuncios are prohibited from granting this license.⁴ - But this prohibition has passed into desuetude in many places.⁵

3° A priest is not excused from venial sin who omits blessings, inclinations, genuflections, etc. ... Say the same of him who advertently does not genuflect to the ground, or contrary to the prescriptions of the Rubric changes the order of blessings, or performs these too hastily.

4° It is a grave sin, unless the lightness of the matter excuses, to omit the parts of the Mass which are called ordinary, or which are always recited or done. Hence Doctors commonly say that it is mortal to omit the Confession with the other things at the beginning of Mass, the Epistle, the Gospel, the principal Collects, the Offertory, the Preface, the breaking of the Host, and its mixing with the Blood.

5° It is mortal to omit in the Canon any prayer, or 10 or 8 names of the Saints (words?), or to change its words so that the sense is changed, or to omit some word by which, when removed, the remaining words do not make sense. - The same is to be said if the Pater noster or Agnus Dei is omitted; likewise concerning Libera nos; Domine, non sum dignus; and Quid retribuam; likewise concerning the purification of the paten and chalice after the consumption.¹

6° It is venial to omit one of the three principal Collects. If the first prayer has been omitted, it seems it is to be recited together with the Secret, not afterwards. It will not be mortal to omit other prayers which are added in the Mass besides the proper Collect.²

7° He sins venially who, contrary to the express prescription of the Rubric of the Missal, a) pronounces those things which are to be said secretly so softly that he does not hear himself (indeed gravely, if he pronounced the words of Consecration thus); b) those things which are to be said in a loud voice, softly, or so loudly that he disturbs other celebrants; c) those things which are to be said softly, loudly. Nevertheless there would be no sin in reciting those things which are to be recited in a subdued voice so that only the ministers hear them.³

8° To mutilate words or to interpose a syncopation, with the sense preserved and scandal excluded, is no more than venial.⁴

9° To omit extraordinary parts, namely those which are not said in every Mass, is only venial. - Thus commonly, unless so many parts are omitted that, taken together, they constitute notable matter. - Hence it will be only venial to omit the Gloria, Credo, Collects besides the proper one of the Mass, the Tract, or special things about the Preface or the Communicantes. - Thus commonly. - Likewise to celebrate a votive Mass or Mass of Requiem when this is not lawful according to the Rubrics is venial, unless it becomes mortal by reason of contempt or scandal. Thus, for example, you will with difficulty be excused from grave scandal if you read a Mass, at least a public one, of Requiem on the solemn feasts of Easter or of the Nativity of the Lord.¹

10° The washing of hands before Mass must be done at least under venial obligation, and under grave obligation if the hands are very unclean, on account of reverence for the Sacrifice. - But to omit the washing after Mass will be no sin.²

11° Although there is no sin in omitting the prayers before and after Mass, nevertheless a priest who approached to sacrifice without any other preparation would not be without some fault.³

12° A priest would sin if in the purification of the Chalice he used water alone, but only venially according to the common opinion.⁴ - Several also excuse a priest from venial sin if he is an abstainer from wine. Thus Tamburinus. - See more concerning the Rubrics and Ceremonies in the authors.

13° Whether it is mortal to celebrate with notable voluntary distraction, e.g. in those things which are recited in the Canon, and especially under the Consecration and Communion, is disputed. St. Alphonsus rather adheres to the affirmative opinion, because, as he says, the Sacrifice, besides the character of prayer, by force of which it would not be certainly mortal (cf. n. 402), has moreover the character of a most excellent worship of Religion, "to which he seems to bring grave irreverence, who, while he professes to worship God by a religious act, voluntarily" and notably "distracts himself."⁵

14° The following things are rightly admonished by the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:⁶

"In celebrating the divine Sacrifice let pains be taken diligently, that all ornaments of altars and sacred vessels be clean; not foul corporals or purificators; not torn or unbecoming vestments; but let the garments of private attire lie hidden under the amice and alb so that they do not appear in an unbecoming or worldly manner; nor let anything be unworthy of the tremendous altar or the administration of the Sacraments."

"That all things be done according to order, and that the solemn rites of the Church be preserved whole, we admonish Rectors of churches that they diligently watch to eliminate abuses which have invaded ecclesiastical chant in these regions. Therefore let them take care that music serve the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the other divine offices, but not that the divine offices serve music. Let them know that, according to the rite of the Church, songs in the vernacular tongue may not be sung during the solemnities of Masses or solemn Vespers." (H) p. 403 and (15) p. 418.

1335. - Besides the Rubrics of the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and other liturgical books, there are also decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which likewise must be judged as the proximate rule of the same rites.¹ This is clear from what was said in n. 172. 4° and 173. q. 3°.

I. The Decrees of the S. R. C. can be distinguished as twofold, general and particular. See what was said in n. 173. q. 4°.

II. They are preceptive if either they are bare declarations or interpretations of Rubrics and concern a preceptive Rubric, or if they are in the rigorous form of a decree, i.e. they have some clause of command, as, e.g., he commanded it to be observed.² Otherwise they are only directive, nevertheless to be observed by all with due respect and to be preferred to any contrary opinion of authors.

III. That they oblige, they must be a) authentic (n. 173. q. 3. R. 1°), such as are all those which are had in the Gardellinian Collection (ib. q. 6°); nor is it enough that they were given by the Prefect or Secretary of the S. R. C. or by others outside the Congregation;³ b) if they are extensive, promulgated in the manner which we stated in n. 173. q. 5°.

IV. If any decrees are truly contrary to one another, one must stand by the later one. - But if some apparent discrepancy is had between the general Rubrics of the Missal and those which are noted in the Order of Mass, each Rubric is to be followed with equal form, reconciling, as far as possible, their dispositions; for the discrepancy ordinarily comes from the fact that what is expressly prescribed in one is passed over in silence or expressed more obscurely in the other. The same is to be said concerning a discrepancy which sometimes occurs between the Missal and the Ceremonial of Bishops; concerning which, however, it can also be said that the Ceremonial can be left to cathedral churches and others, for whose use it is prescribed.¹

I have said further that abuse alone is forbidden. Wherefore musical chant must be grave, decorous, sweet and pious, distinct, intelligible. Cer. Ep. L. I. c. 28. n. 12; Circular Letters of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar of His Holiness, 18 and 20 Nov. 1856, apud Anal. J. P., month of May 1857. Hence in it these abuses are to be reproved and guarded against: 1° lest whether in organ or song anything lascivious or impure be mixed in, such as music is to be kept away from churches; lest profane melodies be introduced, or those which breathe levity, or by excessive noise dissipate rather than foster and excite affections of piety; lest theatrical, military, or worldly songs or modulations be transferred to sacred concerts; so that from sacred music there be removed whatever is alien from its scope, and serves only the curiosity or pleasure of the hearers, or even the fame of the authors. 2° Lest the text be notably altered by mutilating, putting before, putting after, and altering the words and the sense of them, and by adapting them to the modulation in such a way that the music does not seem to serve the words and sense, but these to serve the music; which S. R. C. judged to need reform, 21 Feb. 1643. 1. n. 1285. 1432. For this reason Benedict XIV prescribes in the cited Constitution, § 9, that care is to be taken that the words which are sung be perfectly and plainly understood. 3° Lest those things which are sung under the introit, offertory, elevation, and communion be so prolonged that the celebrant, by waiting, is compelled to interrupt the Sacrifice and to linger distracted longer at the altar, so that music does not serve the Mass, but the Mass serves music. S. R. C., 21 Feb. 1643. 2. n. 1285. 1432; Benedict XIV, Const. cited, § 13.

The Ceremonial of Bishops, L. I. c. 28. n. 1, says that it is fitting that the organ be played while in Mass the Most Holy Sacrament is elevated, but with a graver and sweeter sound. De Herdt, ib. n. 113, 114.

Concerning the use of instruments, Benedict XIV notes these things in the cited Constitution: "If instruments sound continuously, and only sometimes ... rest for some moments, so that they may offer free space for hearing harmonic modulations and rippled ejaculations of voices ... but otherwise overwhelm and bury the voice of the singers and the sound of the words, the use of instruments of this kind is vain and useless, indeed forbidden and interdicted." Which instruments are forbidden, see apud the same Benedict XIV, Const. cited, § 11.

1336. - On custom against the Rubrics.

Query. What conditions are required that it be legitimate?

Resp. 1° That it be immemorial.² This is clear from various decrees of the S. C. R. and from c. Apostolici ministerii of Innocent XIII, 23 May 1723, according to De Herdt.³ - 2° That it not openly conflict with the Rubrics of the Missal, Breviary, Ceremonial of Bishops, or Roman Ritual, or also with the general decrees appended in the Missal and Breviary. - I said: that it not OPENLY conflict, etc.; for the S. R. C., according to De Herdt,⁴ permits and approves those customs which, although they plainly do not agree with the rules contained in the Missal, Breviary, Ceremonial, and Ritual, nevertheless do not openly conflict with the same, but rather concern a certain manner. 3° That it be laudable, i.e. not "contain a positive indecency which cannot becomingly be tolerated."⁵

"From these things it is clear," says De Herdt,⁶ "that very many customs are illegitimate, and therefore to be removed and corrected; which must be done the more if they regard clerics alone, so that, with the people scarcely attending or not caring much, they can be corrected; but if it is foreseen that wonder and scandal will arise in the people from the change to be made, one must proceed very prudently, and sometimes it is better to tolerate something, than to move disturbances, which sometimes are stirred up, even from a good cause, not without great harm to Religion. But truly legitimate and laudable customs ought not to be changed, and if the change would yield to someone's burden, or to wonder and scandal of the people, they cannot be changed at all."

on which, outside the case of an indult of remission, to be obtained by the Bishops from the S. C. C. or respectively from Propaganda Fide, Pastors and Ordinaries are bound to celebrate for the people, Pius IX (see n. 1322. II.) determined to be the following:

Namely, the Lord's days of the whole year; the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; Circumcision; Epiphany; Resurrection with the two following ferial days; Ascension; Pentecost with likewise the two following ferial days; Most Holy Trinity; Solemnity of the Body of Christ and Invention of the Holy Cross, and also the feasts of the Conception, Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God; Dedication of St. Michael the Archangel; Nativity of St. John the Baptist; of Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Andrew, St. James, St. John, St. Thomas, Sts. Philip and James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, Sts. Simon and Jude, and St. Matthias, Apostles of Christ the Lord; likewise St. Stephen, Protomartyr; the Holy Innocents; St. Lawrence, Martyr; St. Sylvester, Pope and Confessor; St. Joseph, also Confessor; and St. Anne, Mother of the Mother of God; the Solemnity of All Saints, and one of the more principal patrons in any kingdom or province, and another likewise more principal in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these patrons are had and venerated.*

S. Th. II-II, q. 85 and q. 86, a. 1; I-II, q. 102, a. 2, 3, 4; III, q. 22, a. 2; q. 47, a. 1; q. 48, a. 3; q. 49.

301. The notion of sacrament is one thing, the notion of sacrifice another. - Although in the Eucharist the same thing is contained and offered, nevertheless the notion of sacrament and of sacrifice differs in many ways:

1. The sacrament consists in a permanent thing, even under one species; the sacrifice in a transitory action: the oblation and immolation of Christ under both species.

2. The sacrament per se and primarily is ordered to our sanctification, of which it is the efficient cause; the sacrifice is ordered to rendering worship to God, which can be an impetratory cause of benefits to be obtained from God.¹

¹ Hence St. Thomas, q. 79, a. 7: "Insofar as in it is represented the passion of Christ, by which Christ offered Himself as a victim to God... it has the notion of sacrifice; but insofar as in it invisible grace is handed on under a visible species, it has the notion of sacrament."

3. The sacrament, for those receiving, is a cause of merit; the sacrifice has efficacy not only of meriting, but also of satisfying.

4. The sacrament ex opere operato profits only the one receiving; the sacrifice profits the celebrant and others.

302. Sacrifice according to the name. - Sacrifice is so called from making sacred, and therefore signifies an act by which man makes something sacred; whence

1. in the broadest sense it signifies an act or work of any virtue whatsoever done in honor of God, and commanded by the virtue of religion, for example works of mercy or obedience (Heb. XIII, 15-16; Ps. L, 19);

2. in the stricter sense it is every act elicited by the virtue of religion, that is, one which has no other goodness except because it is done in honor of God; in this sense an internal sacrifice (Ps. XLIX, 14; I Pet. II, 5, 9), by which the soul offers itself to God, is more a sacrifice than an external one: for exterior worship is nothing except the expression of the interior;

3. in the strictest and proper sense it is the chief act of external and public worship, distinct from all others, most solemn and most excellent, because it more perfectly attests the supreme dominion of God and the full dependence of all things upon Him; whence it is making sacred by excellence (Os. VI, 6; I Reg. XVI, 2-5).

Consequently, by extension and improperly, sacrifice also designates the term of the sacrificial action, namely the thing sacrificed or the victim, insofar as by sacrifice it has been offered to God and made sacred; or the sacred thing itself as made.

303. The real definition of sacrifice. - Sacrifice strictly so called is defined: An external oblation of a sensible and permanent thing, through some change or destruction of it, made by a priest to God, for testifying His supreme dominion and our subjection. In this definition there is indicated:

1. The genus to which sacrifice belongs: oblation, by which something is offered to God to be deputed to divine worship; and indeed an external oblation, because it belongs to external and public worship: thus it differs from devotion and from merely internal sacrifice.

2. The matter: of a sensible and permanent thing; sensible, indeed, because sacrifice is a sensible sign, since it is made for signifying the internal oblation of the mind by which man offers and subjects himself to God as supreme lord; also permanent, namely that which is apt both for signifying the abiding dominion of God over man and over the whole creation, and for representing man himself who hands himself over to God.

Through this oblation differs from adoration, because the latter presents to God a transitory action, for example genuflection, while the former presents a permanent thing, which in sacrifice is offered as vicarious for our sensible and permanent substance; whence it is understood why in sacrifices especially those animals and other things were used which serve man and his sustenance.

3. The form: through some change or destruction, by which, namely, for signifying the supreme dominion of God over all things, the thing is withdrawn from every use of men, and totally and forever passes into the dominion of God, and thus is wholly consecrated to God and made sacred.

It is not required a) that the change always be had through real or physical destruction, but an equivalent can suffice, namely one which, as to the exterior form or according to the estimation of men, is equivalent in the order of signifying to a real change: thus a thing which is rendered unfit for natural uses, as poured-out wine, or is put on the way of destruction, and whatever bears the appearance of destruction so that it is apt for expressing the signification proper to sacrifice; - b) nor is it necessarily required that the destruction of human life in honor of God be signified: even the oblation of another thing, which is wholly consecrated to God, is apt for signifying the supreme dominion of God and our total subjection; indeed the signification of the immolation of human life could per se seem less congruous. Nevertheless, sin being supposed, by which man is worthy of death, for placating God offended and expiating sin, it happened that in propitiatory sacrifice a victim vicarious of human life was destroyed in place of man, in order to signify the expiation of sin. As St. Thomas notes, I-II, q. 102, a. 3, ad 3: "by the killing of animals is signified the destruction of sins, and that men were worthy of killing for their sins, as if those animals were killed in their place to signify the expiation of sins."

By destruction or change sacrifice is distinguished from all other oblations: in a simple oblation the thing, while it is offered, remains whole, although afterward it can be consumed; in sacrifice the oblation itself is made formally through change or destruction; whence St. Thomas, II-II, q. 86, a. 1: "the name of oblation is common to all things which are presented for the worship of God, so that if something is presented for the worship of God as for something sacred that must be made from it by being consumed, it is both an oblation and a sacrifice; but if it is presented so that it remains whole, to be deputed to divine worship or expended for the use of ministers, it will be an oblation, not a sacrifice." Likewise, a little before, q. 85, a. 3, ad 3: "Sacrifices are properly said when something is done about things offered to God, as when animals were killed and burned (a bloody sacrifice), when bread is broken and eaten and blessed (an unbloody sacrifice). And the name itself sounds this, for sacrifice is so called from the fact that man makes something sacred. But oblation is directly said when something is offered to God, even if nothing is done about it, as coins or loaves are said to be offered on the altar, about which nothing is done. Whence every sacrifice is an oblation, but not conversely."

4. The efficient cause, namely the minister: by a priest. To express the public sense of religion in the name of society, a public person is required, i.e., one who enjoys public authority, or is legitimately deputed by it to act for all or in the name of all.

Thus before cities and kingdoms were established, when there were only families and tribes, the father of the family or the firstborn was indicated, as it were naturally, for offering sacrifice; afterward kings also sometimes did this, as Melchisedech did; but for the most part distinct ministers were designated for this: for it is fitting that in society there be ministers separated from the people, permanently instituted for this, who are called priests in the strict sense; once these have been instituted, such an act of sacrifice would be invalidly attempted by others. But since Christ was constituted the head of all men, He was naturally the priest of the whole of humanity. But if God reserves to Himself the ordering of the whole worship, as was done in the supernatural order, no one else can institute a sacrifice or priesthood (Heb. V, 14).

5. The end of sacrifice, both the end to whom: made to God, for sacrifice is an act of the virtue of religion; and the end which: for testifying His supreme dominion and our subjection.

From the fact that a thing is destroyed or changed in honor of God, and is withdrawn from every human use and wholly handed over and consecrated to God, there is signified the full dominion of God over all things and the dependence of all upon Him, especially His dominion over the being and life of man, for whom all things were created.

304. Observations. - 1. Sacrifice is in the genus of oblation, and yet oblation is not its whole essence: for every sacrifice is an oblation, but not every oblation is a sacrifice. This is a special oblation, which at the same time is an external sign, for "it is done for signifying something: but it signifies the interior spiritual sacrifice by which the soul offers itself to God" (II-II, q. 85, a. 2). Whence it is an external action by which the whole thing is consecrated to God and made sacred, for signifying outwardly the total consecration of our mind to God. Oblation has itself after the manner of a genus, sign after the manner of a specific difference.

2. Hence the change of the victim, by which it is consecrated to God, is not a mere prerequisite condition for the sacrificial oblation, but is its constitutive element, insofar as the sacrificial oblation is made through the sacred change itself, and this is a certain real oblation and pragmatic donation.

3. Wherefore the change of the victim must not be called a quasi-material element in sacrifice, but the formal element itself by which precisely it is constituted and formally differs from all other acts of religion.

To forestall equivocation, an entirely twofold formal element must be distinguished in it: one by which it is formally constituted in the notion of an act of religion, and this is the internal intention of honoring God or internal sacrifice, without which external worship would be nothing except simulation; another by which it is formally constituted precisely as an external sacrifice and is not a mere oblation, or adoration, or prayer, or another act of religion, and this is the external sign by which the thing, by some change or destruction, is said to be wholly dedicated to God.

4. Nevertheless destruction or change considered merely materially is not sacred, but only if it is considered formally insofar as it is informed by a spiritual signification. Hence when the killing of the victim preceded the sacrifice - as sometimes happened - and was not done by the priest, who offered to God the victim previously killed, there was indeed a twofold material and physical action, but only one formally in the order of signification, from which it came about that the slaughter, as commanded or ratified by the priest, was already sacred, and the oblation was not a mere oblation but truly sacrificial.

5. Since sacrifice has no other goodness except by reason of its signification, because it is a sign of the interior affection by which man submits himself wholly to God, hence it is not a natural sign which signifies that from its nature, but a conventional one, whence it requires positive institution; nevertheless it is not merely arbitrary, but symbolic, because of itself it has an aptitude for representing our total subjection to God.

6. Hence thurification, the lighting of candles, etc., are not sacrifice, both because they are also done by those who are not priests, and because they were not instituted for acknowledgment of the supreme dominion of God, but for increasing solemnity, for stirring up faith and devotion, etc. (C. Trid., sess. 22, c. 5).

7. Sacrificial oblation is rather often called immolation. This word in the proper sense signifies bloody slaughter, in which sense it is taken by St. Thomas, III, q. 83, a. 1; yet by the Fathers and Scholastics, such as Peter Lombard and Albert the Great, it is also used concerning unbloody sacrifices, and then it signifies every properly sacrificial action, or the change constitutive of sacrifice, in which sense the Council of Trent itself speaks, sess. 22, c. 1 and 2.

305. Diverse species of sacrifice. - Every sacrifice essentially and primarily is latreutic, because it is done in honor of God for testifying that God is the first principle, from whom man totally depends and by whom he is whatever he is. From this it follows that he has from God Himself whatever he has, and expects whatever he will receive; and that, if he turns himself away from God by sin, he is worthy of the penalty of death; for acknowledging these things sacrifices also can be offered. Hence by reason of the end, sacrifice is divided into latreutic (homage-offering), which is especially offered for the worship of God; and eucharistic (thank-offering), for benefits received; and impetratory (petition-offering), for benefits to be received; and propitiatory (atonement-offering), which is also especially done for placating an offended God and repairing sin.

In the Old Law, by reason of form and end, there were distinguished: the holocaust (burnt-offering), which was entirely burned in honor of God and therefore was a latreutic and most perfect sacrifice; - the victim for sin (sin-offering) or for transgression, which was more especially offered for the sins of the people, in which another part yielded to the priest, who therefore was said to eat the sins of the people; - and the peace-offering (peace-offering), which was more especially offered for benefits received or to be received, in which a third part yielded for the use of those offering (Lev. VI-VII).

By reason of the manner in which they are offered, some are bloody sacrifices, which were made with the killing of a victim, for example by the pouring out of blood, burning, and in the Old Law they were principal; others unbloody, in the Old Law accessory, since they were offered rather together with a bloody sacrifice or in place of a bloody one, which are done without the death of a victim, for example by the breaking or burning of a solid thing, the pouring out of a liquid (Lev. I-II), sending into the desert, etc.

306. To all sacrifices there succeeded, as more eminent, the one sacrifice of the New Law: the immolation of Christ which He consummated in the passion and death of the cross² (Matt. XXVI, 53; John XVIII, 6). In this sacrifice:

² That the oblation of the cross is a true and properly so-called sacrifice is established from the doctrine of the Apostle, Eph. V, 2; Heb. VII, 26-27; IX, 25, 28; X, 10, 14, 18, from universal and constant faith, and from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1.

1. The victim is the Son of God made flesh, that He might be substituted for men (Heb. II, 11, 17; I Tim. II, 5, 6; Rom. V; Eph. V, 2), and by the hypostatic union itself sanctified and consecrated as a victim forever.

2. The form is not so much the material killing as the voluntary laying down of His soul and the disposal of His own life, made in honor of God, and externally manifested in the free permission of death; so that Christ's human nature, "when it was offered to God in the passion, was sanctified in a new way, namely, as a victim then actually presented" (III, q. 22, a. 2, ad 3).

3. The minister: it is not the killers themselves, but Christ, who voluntarily admitted death, while He could have impeded it (John X, 17, 18).

4. The value, namely the honor of God, the merit, and the satisfaction, is infinite.

And so the sacrifice of Christ differs greatly from the ancient sacrifices:

1. in dignity, by which it stands infinitely apart from them: a) on the part of the one offering, who is the Son of God made man, and b) on the part of the thing offered, which is His body and blood;

I say. The Mass is not only a true and properly so-called sacrifice of the new law, but also perfectly contains the diverse aspects of the sacrifices of the old law. The first is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, can. 1, where these things are had: "If anyone shall have said that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that to be offered is nothing other than that Christ is given to us to be eaten, let him be anathema." But the other is established from can. 3 of the same session; and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass is latreutic, insofar as it is specially offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme dominion; it is eucharistic, insofar as it is offered in thanksgiving for benefits conferred by God; it is propitiatory and satisfactory, insofar as through it we obtain both pardon of sins and remission of the punishment owed to them; finally, it is impetratory, insofar as it is offered to God for benefits to be obtained from Him through the merits of Christ. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 3, Thesis 17, p. 316. - Lehmkuhl, n. 164.

Question 1. Whether and how does the Sacrifice of the Mass differ from the Sacrifice of the Cross?

Resp. It does indeed differ, but only accidentally; for since the victim is the same, the formal nature of the sacrifice is the same, and the principal offerer or priest is the same, there certainly cannot be an essential difference. But several accidental differences are assigned; the principal ones are, on the one hand, from the part of the victim, which in the Mass is immortal and on the altar of the Cross was mortal; and, on the other hand, from the part of the offerer, because on the Cross Christ offered the sacrifice through Himself, but in the Mass He offers it through the hands of ministers. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 3, Thesis 15, Scholion, p. 293.

Question 2. In what properly does the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass consist?

Resp. Theologians dispute much about this matter, but more probably it must be said to consist in the consecration alone, because only in the consecration is the mystical slaying of the victim properly found; although this is explained in a diverse way by the patrons of this opinion, especially by Suarez and Cardinal de Lugo. - But St. Alphonsus held as more probable the opinion which places the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass also in communion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 305. - De Augustinis, part. 3, Thesis 16, p. 298. - Lehmkuhl, n. 165.

It is unlawful, even when extreme necessity urges, to consecrate the one matter without the other, or even both, outside the celebration of Mass (Can. 817).

Question 3. Can the Sacrifice of the Mass be offered for all indiscriminately?

Resp. It is permitted to apply Mass for any persons whatsoever, both living and also the dead expiating their offenses by the fire of purgatory, with due regard for the prescription of Can. 2262, §2, n. 2. (Can. 809). This prescription has itself thus: "Nevertheless Priests are not prohibited from applying Mass privately and with scandal removed for him (i.e. an excommunicated person); but, if he is one to be avoided, only for his conversion." This power is indeed most ample, for any persons whatsoever, living as well as dead, expiating their offenses by the fire of purgatory; and although an excommunicated person does not become a participant of indulgences, suffrages, and the public prayers of the Church, priests are not prohibited from applying Mass privately and with scandal removed for him; but if he is one to be avoided, only for his conversion; therefore for any living excommunicated persons it is lawful so to apply it, indeed for one to be avoided, provided it is only for his conversion; for all souls of the dead, provided they are purging. We see, therefore, the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine confirmed, which Benedict XIV explains in the Constitution Ex quo primum: "Now heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication. But the sacred Canons of the Church forbid public prayer for excommunicated persons. For this reason the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine writes most excellently to our matter: 'Someone asks whether at this time it is lawful to offer the Sacrifice for the conversion of Heretics or of some Infidels. The reason for doubting is that the whole Liturgy of the Latin Church, which is now in use, is referred to the faithful, as is clear from the prayers of oblation both outside and within the Canon. I answer. I judge that this is lawful, provided nothing is added to the Mass, but the Sacrifice is applied only through the intention of the priest to the conversion of infidels or heretics: for pious and learned men do this, whom we cannot reprehend, nor does there exist an express prohibition of the Church.'" But Cardinal Bellarmine here speaks of the application of Mass in the ordinary sense. Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff makes this doctrine of Bellarmine his own. And what pious and learned men did at that time, many pious priests do even today, that is, secretly apply the special fruit in diverse cases, without public announcement and without a special liturgical prayer. Nor do various recent responses demonstrate that this is illicit. The following cases are resolved thus.

For tolerated excommunicated persons, a secret celebration can be made, both for their conversion and, according to others and not improbably, for any other honest end; nor is secret application forbidden for those same persons when dead, if their good faith and repentance are probable. Cf. Wernz, v. 3, n. 542. Gasparri, n. 483. Concerning heretics and schismatics, living and dead, the same must be said: secret celebration is permitted for the conversion of the living or for other honest ends, and for the rest of the dead if their good faith is probable. Concerning living infidels, these things certainly seem able to be rightly established: for their conversion and any other honest intention, secret celebration is licit; for those same persons dead in infidelity, secret celebration is licit provided before death they gave probable signs of repentance. But in all these cases scandal must be avoided, communication with one to be avoided must be avoided, the stipend from him must be avoided, etc., lest men judge that the Church esteems faithful and pious sons and heretics, excommunicated persons, or other outcasts by one and the same valuation; furthermore, if there is any other special law in this matter, it must be diligently observed.

And therefore it is not lawful to say Mass and to accept alms from a heretic or schismatic for their intention, unless it is established that the alms are offered by them for obtaining conversion. - Cf. Response of the Holy Office, 19 April 1837. On the other hand, we can celebrate Mass for the intention of infidels and accept alms from them, provided there is no scandal and nothing is added in the Mass, and as regards the intention it is established that nothing evil or erroneous or superstitious underlies it in the infidels offering the alms. Holy Office, 12 Jul. 1865. Therefore stipends are licitly accepted from infidels, and Mass is applied for their liberation from illness, etc. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 11 March 1848. But it is not lawful to accept stipends for infidels or heretics or schismatics or excommunicated persons dead in manifest infidelity, heresy, schism, or contumacy: this prohibition is valid not only when an application of this kind would be known to many, but also when it would be known only to the priest and to him who gives the alms. Holy Office, 7 April 1875. Marc, n. 1601. A priest to whom a stipend is offered for some heretic in particular will be able to respond that he can apply Mass for all the faithful departed, with the intention also of helping that soul, if it is acceptable before God. It is not illicit sometimes to pray publicly and say Mass for living infidel, heretical, or schismatic kings as governing the state; but to do the same for those same persons when dead is forbidden by the old and new discipline of the Church. Gregory XVI to the Bishops of Augsburg, 16 Feb. 1842. - Cf. Gasparri, nn. 478 and following. "Il Monitore Eccles." v. 13, p. 132. - Wernz, v. 3, n. 542. - Genicot, n. 221. - Bulot, nn. 375 and following. - Sebastiani, n. 453.

Question 4. How manifold is the fruit of the Sacrifice of the Mass?

Resp. The fruit of the Mass is distinguished under a twofold heading, namely from the part of the offerer and from the part of the victim.

I. From the part of the offerer. - Since the offerer is twofold, namely Christ and the priest, hence from the part of the offerer the fruit of the Mass is of a twofold kind. The first proceeds from Christ offering and is called ex opere operato, because it is received in view of the merits of Christ and His promise. The other proceeds from the priest offering, insofar as it is received in view of the merit and devotion of the celebrating priest, and is called fruit ex opere operantis. Hence it happens that the sacrifice offered by a holy priest, insofar as it is considered ex opere operato, is of no more benefit than if it were offered by an unworthy Minister; because the sacrifice, considered thus, is the work of Christ and the fruit flows only from the merits of Christ. Wherefore in this sense it can rightly be said that the Mass of a bad priest is worth as much as the Mass of a good priest. But it must be said otherwise if the merit ex opere operantis is attended to; for the more worthy the priest is and the more endowed with devotion, so much the greater does the fruit of the Mass become.

II. From the part of the victim. - Under this heading a threefold fruit of the sacrifice is distinguished, namely general, special, most special.

1st. The general fruit is that which corresponds to the sacrifice insofar as it is a work placed by the priest, as he operates in the name of the whole Church. And indeed all the faithful, although the priest does not think of them, perceive this fruit; but it is attributed to them only by way of impetration, not indeed, as it seems, by way of satisfaction, because from the thousands of sacrifices which are offered daily, any just man, even unknowingly, would obtain remission of an immense punishment, which appears incredible. Those standing by at the sacrifice, and a fortiori those cooperating with it, for example, those serving the priest, etc., participate in this general fruit in a more abundant or more special way. But this fruit, as being ex opere operantis, is the richer in proportion as the devotion and holiness of those assisting and cooperating is greater. Hence, although several hear Mass or minister at it, each one will perceive the whole fruit proportioned to his devotion, not otherwise than if he alone were hearing or ministering.

2nd. The special fruit is that which comes to him or to those to whom the priest specially applies the sacrifice. These participate ex opere operato in the sacrifice, as it is impetratory and propitiatory; indeed also, provided nothing stands in the way, as it is satisfactory.

3rd. The most special fruit is that which comes to the priest offering, insofar as he is a private person offering. For if any cooperators perceive from the sacrifice their own altogether special fruit, much more must the priest who sacrifices perceive this. But whether the priest can apply this fruit to others is uncertain, although it is certain that the priest cannot receive a stipend in order to apply this most special fruit to another. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 312. - Ballerini, note (b), p. 241.

Question 5. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite?

Resp. It is certainly infinite if it is considered in itself, or in the thing offered and in the excellence of the dignity of Christ offering. For Christ Himself in this sacrifice is at once victim and principal offerer. Wherefore the Mass is the oblation of a victim of infinite price, made by Christ the primary offerer, who has infinite merit. Nevertheless it is not, nor can it be, infinite as to the application made to individual men, or as to the effect or fruit, because creatures are not capable of perceiving infinite fruit; but the application can be greater or lesser according as the disposition or capacity of him to whom it is applied has been greater or lesser.

Question 6. Is the application of the fruit of the sacrifice restricted to a certain degree, or is it made indefinitely according to the capacity of those for whom it is offered?

Resp. It is much controverted among theologians. For many contend that the application is made indefinitely according to the capacity of the faithful for whom it is offered, and St. Alphonsus says this opinion is most commonly received. The reason for it is that, on the one hand, since the value of the sacrifice is infinite in itself, it can be applied to innumerable men without being exhausted; but on the other hand, nowhere is found some restrictive law of this application, if from another source there is capacity for receiving. Wherefore, they say, if the sacrifice is offered for one only or for a hundred, each of these will perceive as much fruit as that one. But several other theologians hold that the fruit of the Mass is restricted to a certain degree, because although the Mass in itself and as to sufficiency is of infinite value, nevertheless its effect is limited and restricted in a certain quantity from the will of Christ, who instituted this sacrifice so that ex opere operato it would produce a certain effect or a certain degree of satisfaction, independently of the disposition of men. Nevertheless, the patrons of this opinion concede that this degree of fruit can be increased ex opere operantis, that is, according to the greater devotion of the offering priest and of the person for whom it is offered; and that the fruit itself ex opere operato is not restricted extensively as regards those offering, that is, as regards the priest, ministers, and assistants, so that however great their number is, it is as great in each as it would be in one who alone offered. Besides, these theologians also concede that the diverse fruits of the sacrifice can validly be divided by the celebrant or applied to diverse persons. And they teach that this can indeed also licitly be done both in a free Mass and in a Mass which is owed from fidelity alone and was promised to diverse persons for diverse ends.

Since the second opinion is truly probable, at least extrinsically, seeing that most illustrious theologians hold it, such as Bellarmine, de Sacrif. Missae, lib. 2, cap. 4, prop. 4; Suarez, disp. 79, sect. 12, n. 7; Cardinal de Lugo and Cardinal Bona, who both call it the more common and truer opinion, St. Alphonsus rightly warns that it is not lawful for a priest who accepts a stipend from one person to apply the same Mass at the same time for him and for others, to whom he owes nothing by force of a stipend, unless at least under condition, namely provided that he from whom he accepted the stipend is not defrauded. Yet the placing of this condition, given the solid probability of the first opinion, cannot or ought in any way prevent a priest, through the application of the same sacrifice, from being able to satisfy some obligation to another person which he contracted otherwise than through an accepted stipend. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 312 and following. - Lugo, disp. 19, n. 249. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 242; and note (a), p. 243.

Question 7. Does Mass benefit the dead from the infallible promise of Christ?

Resp. Affirmatively, for Mass is usefully offered for the dead, as is established from Trent, sess. 22, can. 3; but this cannot be done except from the promise of Christ, which is reported in Matt. xxvi, 28: "This is My Blood ... which will be poured out for many unto the remission of sins." This is also established from the words of the form in the conferral of Orders: "Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead in the name of the Lord. Amen." - Nevertheless, temporal punishment is not remitted to the dead by a certain law, but it benefits them only by way of suffrage, according as it shall have pleased God to accept it. - Cf. Perrone, n. 282.

Question 8. Does a Mass of Requiem benefit the dead more than a Mass of the Saints?

Resp. Negatively, as to the substance or from the part of the sacrifice; but affirmatively as to accidentals or from the part of the prayers, the defect of which devotion can supply. - Note here that a Mass of Requiem and in black vestments can be applied for a living person, provided he who gives the alms has not expressly declared the opposite. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 310, after St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 72, art. 3. - S. C. Rit., 29 Nov. 1856.

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.

I say. All priests, by reason of the priesthood, by divine right are held under grave sin to celebrate at some time. This is proved from the words of Christ, Luke xxii, 19: "Do this in remembrance of Me." - By these words, according to the witness of the Council of Trent, Christ commanded the Apostles and their successors that they should offer the sacrifice. Besides, all priests in their ordination receive not only the power, but also the charge and office of sacrificing annexed to it. Hence the Apostle says, Heb. v, 1: "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in those things which pertain to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." Now in a grave matter each one is held under grave sin to carry out the charge he has received. - Cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 82, art. 10. - St. Alphonsus, n. 313.

The Code says: All priests are held by the obligation of offering the Sacrifice several times per year ... (Can. 805).

Question. How often in life or in a year is a priest held to celebrate?

Resp. Let the Bishop or religious Superior take care ... that the same priests operate in divine things at least on individual Sundays and other feasts of precept (Can. 805).

I say. All Pastors of souls are held by natural and divine right at some time to celebrate Mass so that they may apply it for their sheep. The reason is taken both from the fact that to feed someone spiritually necessarily implies procuring for him spiritual goods, which are obtained chiefly through the most excellent Sacrifice of the Mass, and from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 1, de Reform., where it is said: "Since by divine precept it has been commanded to all to whom the care of souls has been committed, to know their sheep, to offer sacrifice for them," etc.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1088, n. 12.

Question 1. What does that particle "at some time" import?

Resp. The Church of God, interpreter of natural and divine right, has now determined its extension. Therefore Pastors of souls are held to celebrating for their sheep "on Sundays and other feast days which are still observed by precept and which have been removed from the number of feast days of precept." These are the very words of Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letters In Suprema. But if you ask how many and which are those feast days, besides Sundays, whether actually observed or suppressed, it is answered that they are 35, and their catalogue is found above under n. 327. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 14, pp. 529 and following.

Question 2. Who are the Pastors of souls who, whether by natural and divine right or ecclesiastical right, are held to celebrating for the people?

Resp. Bishops: §1. They also must, after having taken possession of the see, every excuse of scantiness of revenues or any other exception being removed, apply Mass for the people committed to them on all Sundays and other feast days of precept, even suppressed ones.

§2. On the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, and if any feast of precept falls on a Sunday, it is enough that they apply one Mass for the people.

§3. If a feast is so transferred that on the day to which it is transferred not only is the office with the Mass of the transferred feast done, but the obligations also of hearing Mass and abstaining from servile works are observed, Mass for the people is to be applied on the day to which; otherwise on the day from which.

§4. The Bishop himself must apply Mass for the people on the days indicated above by himself; if he is legitimately impeded from its celebration, on the stated days let him apply it through another; if he cannot furnish even this, let him apply it as soon as possible either by himself or through another on another day.

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

§6. A Bishop who has not satisfied the obligation concerning which in the preceding paragraphs should as quickly as possible apply for the people as many Masses as he omitted (Can. 339).

Apostolic Vicars and Prefects:

They 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, Saint Joseph her spouse, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and All Saints, with the prescription of can. 339, §§2 and following being observed (Can. 306).

Abbots nullius have the same obligations which belong to residential Bishops in their own diocese. - Cf. Can. 323, §1.

The Capitular Vicar is held by the obligation of applying Mass for the people according to the norm of Can. 339. - Cf. Can. 440.

§1. The pastor is held by the obligation of applying Mass for the people according to the norm of can. 339, the quasi-pastor according to the norm of can. 306 (Can. 466).¹

It is fitting from charity that titular Bishops sometimes apply the Sacrifice of the Mass for their diocese, but short of obligation. - Cf. Can. 348.

With relation to the suppressed feasts concerning which in Can. 339, §1, 466, §1, on which namely Mass must be applied by Bishops and Pastors for the people committed to them, nothing in this matter has been changed by the Code of Canon Law from the discipline in force up to this time. Thus the Pontifical Commission for authentically interpreting the canons of the Code. - 17 Feb. 1918.

§2. 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.²

§3. The local Ordinary, from a just cause, can permit that the pastor apply Mass for the people on another day than that on which he is bound by law.

§4. Let the pastor celebrate the Mass to be applied for the people in the parochial church, unless circumstances of things demand or advise that Mass be celebrated elsewhere (Can. 466).

If someone on the same day is urged by the burden of each Mass, both for the people and conventual, let him himself celebrate and apply this latter by himself, and the former through another or by himself on the following day. - Can. 419, §2.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1106, n. 48.

² Cf. Addenda, p. 1150, n. 124.

Question 3. Are priests who among us have care of souls, by whatever name they are called, held by the aforesaid burden?

Resp. They are held, because they are pastors or quasi-pastors. - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 367. - Can. 216, 451. This latter canon has itself thus: A Pastor is a priest or moral person to whom a parish has been conferred as title, with care of souls to be exercised under the authority of the local Ordinary. Quasi-pastors are those who govern quasi-parishes. But Canon 216 is read thus:

§1. The territory of any diocese is to be divided into distinct territorial parts; and to each part its own particular church with a determined people is to be assigned, and its own particular rector, as the proper pastor of the same, is to be placed over it for the necessary care of souls.

§2. In like manner an apostolic vicariate and apostolic prefecture, where this can conveniently be done, are to be divided.

§3. The parts of a diocese concerning which in §1 are parishes; the parts of an apostolic vicariate and apostolic prefecture, if a particular rector has been assigned to them, are called quasi-parishes (Can. 216).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, pp. 1103, 1104, nn. 44, 45.

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

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

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

Resp. It is never lawful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 8. Within what time must Masses be said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon 841 prescribes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. QUESTION I. What is a sacrifice, and of how many kinds is it? ANSWER. Sacrifice in its ample signification comprehends every good work, whether internal or external, which is directed to the glory of God. The notion of sacrifice strictly taken is this: an external oblation, made to God alone, by which, in recognition of his supreme dominion, some sensible and permanent thing is consecrated by a lawful minister with a mystical rite. Oblation holds the place of the genus. It is called external or sensible, because it is an act of religion in which men come together. But they cannot come together save by sensible signs, by which they manifest that which inwardly they bear in mind. It is called a sacrifice of a sensible thing, that it may be distinguished from the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Made to God alone. For God alone is the founder and governor of men, the beginning and the end. In recognition of his supreme dominion. By this exterior sacrifice a man protests his servitude to God, and that he has received from him whatever of good he has. For the primary end of sacrifice is the worship exhibited to God. By a lawful minister the oblation must be immolated, namely by a person designated to this office.

II. Sacrifice is divided, first, by reason of the matter, which is either solid, as an animal, which was offered in the old law after a victory gained over the enemy: therefore it was called hostia, from a victim of victory. Solid things also are bread, salt, incense, ears of corn, and wheat. Another matter is liquid, as wine, oil, blood, and water, which were sometimes offered and were called a libation. Second, by reason of the form it is distributed into holocaust, and into a sacrifice or victim for sin, and a peace-offering. The most perfect of all sacrifices was the holocaust, which was wholly consumed. The sacrifice for sin was partly consumed, and part passed to the use of the priests. Third, by reason of the end it is divided into latreutic, eucharistic, impetratory, and propitiatory.

III. QUESTION II. Is it a dogma of faith that the Mass is a sacrifice? ANSWER. By various names the Sacrifice of the Mass is called. First, it is called Liturgy. Second, Synaxis, or the conjunction of the faithful with Christ. Third, Oblation, which is offered in expiation of sins. Fourth, Collect, or the congregation of the faithful people. Fifth, it is called Missa from the verb to send, either because Christ is the victim sent to us by God, or because the sacrifice was made from the gifts sent by the faithful people, or because, the sacrifice being performed, the people is sent away, the deacon singing: Go, it is the dismissal.

IV. By a threefold canon Trent defined, session 22, that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice. Canon 1: If anyone shall say that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, and so forth, let him be anathema. Like things are had in canons 3 and 4. By these three canons Trent routed the errors of the innovators. There is added the perpetual tradition of the Church and the consent of the Fathers, whose testimonies I have given in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 2.

V. QUESTION III. Is the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass set in the oblation? ANSWER. The oblation which precedes the consecration is a mere preparation for the sacrifice: for it is an oblation of bread and wine. But bread and wine are not the victim of the sacrifice; but the victim is Christ the Lord himself. The oblation which follows the sacrifice similarly does not pertain to the essence of the sacrifice, since it was not instituted by Christ but by the Church, as also was the first.

VI. The oblation made in the consecration constitutes the essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass. For a sacrifice consists in the oblation and immolation of a sensible victim. Further, it is certain that in the consecration there is a true oblation. Since indeed Christ by force of the consecration is placed upon the altar as a true lamb and victim under the species of bread and wine, and is constituted in a certain state of death, inasmuch as, through the spiritual sword of the words, under diverse and separated species he is immolated and offered to God the Father. But this mystical separation, which is made by force of the words, of the body and the blood, aptly represents the bloody separation of the blood from the body accomplished on the cross.

VII. The communion of the priest is at least an integral part of the Sacrifice of the Mass, as all confess. Some maintain that it is an essential part. Since the Sacrifice of the Mass is the most perfect of all, and obtains the character of a holocaust. Further, as in a holocaust the whole victim was consumed, so in the Sacrifice of the Mass by the communion of the priest the whole victim is consumed. But that disagreement is of small moment. For the consumption of the sacrifice is of divine right. Wherefore if a priest die after the consecration, another priest, even one not fasting, ought to consume the sacrifice. Therefore the consecration is essentially ordained to the consumption. Similarly the consecration of both species pertains to the essence of the sacrifice, as all theologians affirm. For in the consecration is made the representation of the Lord's passion. Therefore the body ought not to be consecrated without the blood. Hence if a priest die after the consecration of the bread, another priest is to be substituted who may complete the sacrifice begun.

VIII. If after the consecration poison be detected, it ought not to be taken, but ought to be preserved in a fit little vessel, and other wine to be consecrated and taken. If an animal should fall in, it ought cautiously to be taken and washed and burned, and together with the ashes sent into the sacrarium, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 83, art. 6, reply 3.

I. QUESTION I. Is the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass infinite? ANSWER. There is a twofold value: one ex opere operato, which proceeds from the work itself immediately instituted by Christ; another ex opere operantis, which is the effect of the merit and dignity of the minister. Theologians dispute on either side whether the value ex opere operato be infinite: for that the other is finite we all maintain. In few words I resolve the question. If the value be regarded absolutely, and inasmuch as it expresses power and sufficiency, without doubt it is infinite: since the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as regards sufficiency as the Sacrifice of the Cross; the manner only of offering is diverse. But if it be regarded as it is offered by ministers and in second act, thus it is limited and finite. What of this, that the Sacrifice of the Cross itself as regards the application produces a limited effect in us, because the disposition of the subject is finite? If the effect of the Sacrifice of the Mass were infinite, it would profit all equally as much as one or another; a single Mass would free all the souls of Purgatory; and yet the Church never ceases from offering sacrifices for the dead.

II. QUESTION II. What are the effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 2, teaches here that the Sacrifice of the Mass is rightly offered, according to the tradition of the Apostles, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the living faithful, but also for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged. Since the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory, it avails for the pardon of sins and for satisfaction, as the same Council in the same place, canon 3, defined. Through the Sacrifice sins are remitted mediately, inasmuch as God bestows upon the sinner actual graces by which he is stirred up and disposed to penitence. Upon the just it confers an increase of grace, and profits them for the remission of venial sins. By this Sacrifice also we obtain temporal goods, inasmuch as the use of them conduces to eternal life. The Sacrifice of the Mass therefore is ordained to temporal goods not as to an end, but as to means whose use marks out the way to the end.

III. QUESTION III. To whom and for whom is the Sacrifice of the Mass offered? ANSWER. All Catholics teach that the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God alone, and that as temples and altars are erected and consecrated to God alone, as Trent defined, session 22, chapter 3.

IV. But the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for all men — pagans, Jews, schismatics, heretics, the excommunicated — but especially for catechumens, and for the faithful. And this is drawn from St. Paul himself, who in 1 Timothy 2 says: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Christ suffered for all: therefore for all the Sacrifice can be offered. By a stronger right it is offered for the faithful, who are joined to Christ by the bond of faith. That the sacrifice is not to be offered for the damned all teach. Neither is sacrifice offered for the saints reigning with God, because there is nothing to be sought in them.

V. QUESTION IV. Can the Sacrifice be offered for the pious souls detained in Purgatory? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and this is gathered from the perennial tradition of the Church and from holy Scripture, especially from 2 Maccabees, chapter 12. And this Trent defined, session 22, chapter 2: that the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the living faithful, but also for the dead, rightly, according to the tradition of the Apostles. This same it declared in canon 3. The testimonies of the Fathers and of other councils I pass over for brevity's sake.

VI. QUESTION V. Who is the minister of the Sacrifice of the Mass? ANSWER. That priests alone are the ministers of this Sacrifice the Catholic Church has always taught, and against the innovators Trent defined, session 7, canon 10: If anyone shall say that all Christians have power in the word and in administering all the sacraments, let him be anathema. And again, session 22, canon 2, it adds: If anyone shall say that by those words, "Do this for a commemoration of me," Christ did not institute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his body and blood, let him be anathema. Christ the Lord, as the eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedech, is the principal offerer. Priests offer as ministers and vicars of the same Christ. They offer indeed as true priests ordained to this ministry, but ministerially. The faithful people offers by desire, by will, and by spiritual conjunction with the offerer.

VII. QUESTION VI. Do wicked priests — heretics, schismatics, the suspended, the excommunicated, the degraded — validly perform the sacrifice? ANSWER. That priests stained with mortal sin validly consecrate all Catholics teach. That the others recounted also validly perform the Sacrifice all theologians teach with St. Thomas, III, q. 82, art. 7, reply 3. Since although the exercise of the order can be suspended by a lawful superior, the power of the order nevertheless cannot be blotted out. It is not lawful nevertheless either to assist at the Sacrifice or to seek communion from excommunicated, suspended, degraded, heretical, or schismatic priests.

VIII. Private Masses, in which the priests alone communicate, are lawful, as the Council of Trent defined, session 22, chapter 6, against the innovators.

I. The most wise Pontiff Benedict XIV set this argument in full light both in his treatise On the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the work On the Synod. I have reported entire in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 6, the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent upon this argument, which you can see there. Now I shall resolve certain little questions.

II. QUESTION I. By whom is the alms to be conferred upon a priest celebrating Mass to be fixed? ANSWER. By the bishop, as the Congregation of the Council determined, since a general rule cannot be prescribed. If a priest exact more alms than the bishop's fixing prescribes, he injures not only the law of the Church but commutative justice itself. Nor is it required, as all theologians teach, that the alms suffice for the entire sustenance of one day, because the action of the Sacrifice does not require the whole day but half an hour. Wherefore secular priests are not promoted to sacred Orders without a title either of patrimony or of benefice.

III. QUESTION II. Is it lawful for a rich priest to accept an alms that he may celebrate Mass? ANSWER. If several ancient canons be consulted, they seem to grant an alms to a priest about to celebrate on account of sustenance; but the universal custom of the Church, by which one must always stand, permits to all priests indiscriminately an alms for a Mass to be celebrated. Which custom rests upon holy Scripture, since St. Luke says, chapter 10: For the labourer is worthy of his hire; and St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 9: Know you not, that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? Let the Apostle's whole chapter be read. That priests are rich or poor is, as regards this, by accident. He that serveth the altar, let him live by the altar.

IV. QUESTION III. What priests in celebrating afford a suspicion of simony? ANSWER. Those who, the alms being lacking, desist from celebrating. For the author of the opusculum On the Office of a Priest, chapter 1, once attributed to St. Thomas, says: A priest nevertheless cannot celebrate with this intention, that from it he may obtain money, for he would sin mortally. Very easily do many flatter themselves, and study to disguise this intention with various pretexts. But let priests consult their own fervour, and the profit which they take from celebration, and hence, when they will not lie to themselves, they will gather whether they celebrate principally for the end of the Sacrifice, or for the gaining of bread.

V. QUESTION IV. Can a priest celebrate through another, retaining for himself part of the stipend accepted? ANSWER. Many affirm it, whose opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 9: After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are delivered can satisfy through another, a lesser stipend being conferred upon him, another part of the stipend being retained for himself. Fr. Viva upon this proposition 9, no. 8, reports the lax opinion of Bordoni asserting that the aforesaid priest does not sin against justice, but only against the obedience owed to the Pontiff: upon which opinion Fr. Viva brings forth this most probabilistic judgment: Although this is not without its own probability, it seems nevertheless more probable, and so forth. If that opinion is not without its own probability, then by force of Probabilism it can be committed to execution.

VI. Fr. Tamburini, Book 3, Method of the Mass, chapter 1, § 5, no. 15, says: “If a man, being a procurator that a hundred Masses, for example, be celebrated, which Masses in this city are wont to be said for, say, two hundred julii: if a man, I say, by his own industry send or go to another city, where within the demanded time they may be said for a hundred julii, I think it not improbable that such a procurator can retain for himself the other hundred. The reason is that a parity can be taken from a servant who by extraordinary industry (for to the ordinary and moral he is obliged by his very service), by his own labour buys things at less than they are commonly worth in the market: for he can retain what is over, as being the fruit of his own industry. In a like way therefore in our case.” A most witty comparison of profane service with the procurators to whom the care of Masses to be celebrated is committed! All things become lawful by the probable and by the non-probable. The filthiest gain is insinuated in the very celebration of Masses. A Christian man would scarcely think such things, did he not meet those writings. Servants let out their labours to their master. Wherefore it can scarcely, or at least rarely, happen that they can gain for themselves by extraordinary industry, since the time to be laid out in extraordinary industry has been sold to the master. But even granting the servant's gain, to extend it to procurators of Masses seems to abhor from truth and honesty.

VII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Treatise on Proposition 9 of Alexander VII, no. 8, says: “If collectors of alms for Masses be priests, and Masses to be celebrated be not delivered to them, but they bear themselves as laymen who take care of the celebration of Masses, they will be able, from Navarrus, Córdoba, and Tamburini, probably against Pellizzari and Soto, to take a moderate wage for their labour out of what is given for the Mass, since this seems lawful by the law of nature.” Good heavens! The law of nature permits that out of the offerings conferred by the faithful for the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated, priests take a wage, provided that in collecting the alms they bear themselves as laymen and not as priests! The practice of both opinions, of Tamburini and Viva, Benedict XIV prohibited in his Constitution 21, whose beginning is Quanta cura, where among other things these things are had: There are forbidden traffickings upon the alms of Masses; that is, those who collect alms in those places in which the stipends or alms for Masses are of a greater price, but take care that the Masses be celebrated in places in which they are wont to be celebrated for a lesser price: if they be laymen, let them incur excommunication; but if clerics or priests, suspension to be absolved by the Roman Pontiff alone. See also what the same Pontiff writes, Book 5, On the Synod, chapter 8, no. 9, and chapter 9, no. 2.

VIII. A beneficiary, when he is compelled to celebrate through another, can lawfully afford the accustomed alms, although he himself perceive a greater one from the benefice, as the Sacred Congregation determined. In those Masses therefore which they call manual, it is forbidden to celebrate through others, a lesser stipend being conferred than was accepted. When a man commits a Mass to be celebrated to a priest instructed with singular uprightness, a greater stipend being conferred, he ought not to celebrate through another, even the whole stipend being conferred. Several other little questions some raise here, which savour of trafficking and bring in disgust.

IX. A priest who accepts scanty stipends from several, promising a Mass to each, cannot satisfy with one Mass alone. Fr. Viva, question 5, last article, no. 9, says: “But Trullench and Tamburini, Book 3, chapter 1, § 3, think probable the opinion of Suárez teaching that in that case this can be granted to a poor priest, when, compelled by poverty, he consents.” This opinion was disapproved on the 14th by a decree of the Sacred Congregation. Fr. Viva heaps up many things from Tamburini and other probabilists, to show that the decree of the Sacred Congregation is not opposed to the opinion of Suárez; but at no. 10 he confesses with de Lugo that by the decree of the Congregation it is forbidden that the opinion of Fr. Suárez be reduced to practice. And at last, contrary to his custom, he concludes: I judge in the third place that the opinion of Suárez is false.

X. QUESTION V. Can a priest accept a twofold stipend — one for the attendance, as it is called, at a designated church, the other for the application? ANSWER. De Lugo and Tamburini affirm it, provided it be established that the one willed only the presence, the other only the application. Fr. La Croix reports for this opinion Suárez, Vásquez, Pasqualigo, Aversa, and others, and himself after his manner brings forth nothing.

XI. But the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, Vol. 5, note 15, reports a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of the 9th of January and the 6th of February in the year 1617, which contains this. Whether priests who under no other obligation celebrate in confraternities or in monasteries of nuns than for the adornment of the church, or that the confraternity brothers or the nuns may satisfy the precept of hearing Mass, can accept beyond the stipend which they receive from the confraternities or the nuns another stipend? The Sacred Congregation of the Council on the 9th of January and the 6th of February in the year 1617, in the Traguriensian case, answered that they cannot.

XII. A priest cannot receive a twofold stipend, one for the fruit of impetration of the Mass, another for the fruit of satisfaction, whatever some may formerly have devised to the contrary. He who accepted a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated where and when he shall have willed, if someone afterwards ask him to celebrate at a certain place or time, can he accept something for such an obligation? There are those who affirm it: to me subtle figments of this kind seem tinged with the soot of a base trafficking. Similarly I do not approve the opinion of Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 141, which he reports from Fr. Gobat in these words: If nevertheless it be agreed concerning the most special fruit, or another part of the fruit not sought, to be applied to a third party, that it may profit him as much as it can, that something can therefore be taken Gobat notes, no. 52, provided he warn the giver of the uncertainty whether such an application profit him. Distinctions of this kind in a most grave matter I do not approve.

XIII. QUESTION VI. Can several obligations be satisfied by a single Mass? ANSWER. Although Urban VIII, Supreme Pontiff, forbade this, there have not therefore been lacking those who maintained the opposite. Their opinion Alexander VII proscribed in this thesis 10: It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice; neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise, by a promise confirmed even by an oath, to him who gives the stipend, that I will offer it for no other. Let the reader observe that this thesis was maintained and devised by certain Catholics, and let him seriously consider what can be expected from them in controverted matters, if against a truth so clear they could write such things. You promised, you swore that you would sacrifice for no other; nevertheless you sacrifice, and do not sin even against fidelity? Did Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, or Plutarch ever write such things?

XIV. When a man has accepted stipends for Masses to be celebrated, he ought not long to defer the celebration. Diana, de Lugo, and Pasqualigo teach that it cannot be deferred beyond three months. Urban VIII forbids in his decree that more Masses be accepted than can be celebrated within a small time. But the time of three months does not seem small. The quantity of time cannot be defined; but the circumstances, and especially the wills of the offerers and the necessities for the relieving of which the Masses are prescribed, are to be attended to. He who cannot celebrate the Masses for which he accepted stipends ought to furnish that which he can. He ought to admonish the offerers, if circumstances permit, that they take care that the Masses be celebrated. But his reputation is injured. Alas, wretched man! You squander your reputation by iniquitous actions which misbecome a priest of Christ; and when satisfaction must be made to God and to your neighbour, do you set your reputation against it?

XV. He who has vowed to offer a sacrifice for thanksgiving cannot accept a stipend, because he is presumed to have had this intention. He who accepted a stipend that he might celebrate a Mass of Requiem does not gravely sin if he celebrate another Mass; nevertheless, when the rubrics permit, faith is to be kept with the offerer, and he is to be warned that such a Mass cannot be celebrated. The anticipated celebration of Masses — namely, that a Mass to be celebrated tomorrow be celebrated today — since it is to the offerer's advantage, lacks fault, unless the offerer's intention be otherwise. He who is bound to celebrate every day can once in the week for reverence' sake omit it; he cannot nevertheless accept a stipend and celebrate for another. He who by the burden of a chaplaincy is bound to celebrate daily, if on account of the crimes of pollution, fornication, drunkenness, and so forth he be suspended by his confessor as unworthy, ought to fulfil his burden through another priest.

XVI. When a testator of a chaplaincy does not prescribe the number of Masses, it is better to consult the bishop. If a chaplain be sick, for about two months authors commonly free him from celebrating through another. But that priests may be freed from every doubt, the synodal laws or approved customs of each diocese are to be consulted. Too lax is the opinion which frees a chaplain from the burden of celebrating for the whole time in which he is sick. He who labours under the falling sickness ought to abstain from celebration. If he fall rarely, let the bishop be consulted, who, all things being regarded, may decide.

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.

XVIII. The reduction of Masses Benedict XIV set in full light, Book 5, On the Synod, chapter 10, where after many indicated decrees of Pontiffs he concludes: “Nevertheless after Urban VIII other Roman Pontiffs — namely Alexander VII, Clement X, Clement XI, Innocent XII, and Benedict XIII — granted to almost all religious institutes the privilege that the superiors general, mature counsel being employed and certain rules being observed which are expressed in the letters of the same privileges, could each in his own religious order moderate the burdens of Masses previously left and accepted: and the same faculty was made by Benedict XIII of holy memory to all bishops who by themselves or by their procurators were present at the Roman Council held in 1725, as may be seen in the same Council, title 15, chapter 8.”

XIX. QUESTION VII. On what days ought those who bear the care of souls to apply the Mass for the flock committed to them? ANSWER. Various disputations were formerly among authors upon this matter. All these the most learned Pontiff Benedict XIV, happily reigning, took away in his encyclical letter upon the parochial and conventual Mass, whose beginning is Cum semper oblatas, given in the year 1744. I have reported the entire letter in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 6. Now I transcribe a few words. We think it opportune to declare to your Fraternities that it will be abundantly enough for us, and consequently can be enough for you, that those who exercise the care of souls celebrate and apply the sacrifice of the Mass for the people on Sundays and on the other days of precept throughout the year. Read the entire letter, in which you will find most wholesome documents for parish priests. There are also rejected the excuses of those pastors who omitted to apply the Sacrifice on the said days for the flock committed to them on account of the slenderness of their revenues.

XX. QUESTION VIII. At what hour is it lawful to celebrate? ANSWER. From dawn until noon, as the common opinion teaches. Various causes can occur for anticipating or protracting this celebration by an hour. He who without cause violates the law of the prescribed time sins. I reckon that in this matter one rarely sins gravely, on account of the various customs of places.

XXI. QUESTION IX. When is it lawful to celebrate several times on the same day? ANSWER. Formerly priests celebrated several times. At present it is granted only on the day of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate three Masses. No one nevertheless is bound to celebrate three. Several cases are wont to be assigned in which it is lawful to repeat Masses. If a parish priest have several parishes, and unless he celebrate several Masses some parish would lack a Mass, then, they say, he can double. But in our age, in which the supply of priests is most abundant, this necessity scarcely occurs.

XXII. QUESTION X. In what place is one to celebrate? ANSWER. In a church either consecrated, or at least blessed by the bishop, at an altar either consecrated or in which there is a consecrated stone. The bishop can impart a faculty of celebrating outside a church in some honourable place for a just cause. A bishop on a journey can celebrate at a portable altar, both in his own and in another's diocese. Upon which matter Clement XI published a decree in the year 1703, which I have reported entire in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 7. In a ship also it is lawful to celebrate, provided there be no danger of the blood being spilled.

XXIII. QUESTION XI. What is to be said of private oratories? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 22, On the Celebration of Mass, forbids that bishops permit celebration in private houses. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 267, relates that bishops exercise the power of granting private oratories. In Italy this faculty of erecting oratories in the houses of seculars is granted by the Supreme Pontiff alone.

XXIV. In oratories of this kind it is forbidden to celebrate on the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, of the Epiphany, of Easter, of Pentecost, of the Annunciation, of the Assumption, of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All Saints, unless it be otherwise expressed in the privilege.

Caius, a priest doubtful whether he had given consent to an evil thought, anxiously began to celebrate Mass. While celebrating Mass he judged now that he had consented and now otherwise; occupied with his doubts, he did not notice that the server, since the Most Holy Sacrament was not reserved on the altar, had placed on the corporal a small host for Communion. After receiving Communion and hearing the Confiteor recited by the server, he looked and saw the small host on the corporal. At first he did not know what was to be done, but soon, remembering that some years before he had formed the intention of consecrating at Mass whatever capable of being properly consecrated was placed on the altar, although afterwards, having forgotten the intention, he had never renewed it, he gave the host to the server for Communion. Afterwards, however, tormented by doubts, he asked a confessor whether he had sinned by celebrating without previous confession or contrition, and whether he ought to have given the host to the server. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for a valid consecration of the Eucharist?

2. How does a priest sin by celebrating in mortal sin?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for the valid consecration of the Eucharist?

The proper matter must be physically present and must be determined by the intention of the priest when he utters the words of consecration.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 84.

2. How does a priest sin who celebrates in mortal sin?

He commits several mortal sins: by consecrating the

Holy Eucharist in sin, by communicating in sin, and by administering Holy Communion to himself though he knows that he is unworthy to receive it.²

2 Ibid., p. 33.

3. The case. Caius should have made up his conscience finally before saying Mass as to whether he had sinned or not. Frequently this can be done in such cases by means of presumptions. If more frequently than not he consents to such bad thoughts when attacked by them, he should presume that he consented in this doubtful case, and should go to confession. If he does not usually consent, the presumption is in his favor, and he may conclude that he did not consent in this doubtful case. If he can not make up his mind but remains in doubt he should at least elicit an act of contrition before saying Mass. He should not have given the host for Communion to his server, for it could hardly have been consecrated under the circumstances. An actual or at least virtual intention is required for the validity of the consecration. He had not an actual intention, for he had not noticed the small host until the communion. Nor had he a virtual intention, for the purpose which he had formed many years before of consecrating whatever was capable of being consecrated with decency had not been renewed, and had been forgotten. It could not then continue to have an influence on the act of consecration, and some influence is required for a virtual intention. We must, then, conclude that the small host was not consecrated and it should not have been given for communion.

A certain Bishop had ordained twelve new priests, but after his Communion it was noticed that a ciborium containing hosts for communicating the new priests had inadvertently been left on the credence table at the side of the altar. As the master of ceremonies doubted what was to be done, one person advised that it should be suggested to the Bishop that here and now he consecrate the ciborium conditionally and distribute the consecrated particles; another insinuated that they had without doubt already been consecrated by virtue of the virtual intention certainly possessed by the Bishop; a third suggested that one of the new priests ought to pronounce the words of consecration over the ciborium so that it would certainly be consecrated; finally, a fourth suggested that as many hosts should be taken from the tabernacle so that the new priests might complete the Mass celebrated by each of them simultaneously with the Bishop. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required for a valid consecration in Mass?

2. What is required for a lawful consecration?

3. What is to be done by the Bishop in the case, and what is to be said of the various means suggested to the master of ceremonies?

The first question was answered above, p. 129.

2. What is required for the lawful consecration of the Eucharist?

For the lawful consecration of the matter of the Eucharist the hosts must be whole, clean, and of the usual size and shape, the chalice and ciborium must be on the corporal and uncovered, and the consecration must be in Mass as it is prescribed to be said, and under both kinds.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 85.

3. The case. The first suggestion is altogether inadmissible, if followed it would mean that the bishop was to say Mass again without following the order prescribed by the Church, and was to consecrate under one species alone. I

The bishop could hardly have had an intention to consecrate the ciborium according to the second suggestion, for if he had thought of it at all he would have noticed that it was not on the altar. It is true that it might have been validly consecrated on the credence table, but unless the bishop actually intended to do it this should not be assumed.

The third suggestion has all the inconveniences of the first, for the newly ordained priests celebrate Mass with the bishop.

The reason given for the fourth suggestion is incorrect, for the hosts in the tabernacle were consecrated in another Mass and can not be used to integrate this Mass. However, this suggestion seems to be the best, for thus the new priests can at any rate receive Holy Communion, though the hosts were not consecrated in this Mass as they should have been.

Caius, an old missionary in England, recently indeed poured forth private prayers to God for the deceased Queen, but thought it would be a sin to do anything else. Not therefore without astonishment did he hear that in a neighboring Catholic church an evening memorial service, as it is called, had been held with a special sermon; that in another a Mass had been privately applied, as the priest there afterwards publicly announced; and that in another a Requiem Mass had been publicly celebrated for the soul of the deceased. Wondering, therefore, Caius consulted a theologian about what was to be judged concerning the aforesaid things. Hence it is asked:

1. Is it prohibited by divine or natural law to pour forth prayers publicly or privately, or to apply Mass, for any persons whatsoever?

2. What is prohibited in this matter by ecclesiastical law?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Is it forbidden by divine or natural law to pray publicly or privately or to apply Mass for any one?

Apart from scandal or other extrinsic reasons we are not forbidden by divine or natural law to pray or to offer Mass for any one whom it will benefit. It is useless to pray or to offer Mass for the damned.

2. What is forbidden in this matter by ecclesiastical law?

The Church by her sentence deprives excommunicated persons of a share in the public suffrages offered by her ministers in her name. All acknowledge that by this law it is forbidden to pray or offer Mass publicly for those who are to be avoided as excommunicates. Some hold that it does not prohibit public prayer for those excommunicates who are tolerated. Some think that it is a law which has force only in the external forum, and that privately we may offer Mass for all whom it will benefit, as we may and certainly should pray for all men privately.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 116.

3. The case. The wonder felt by Caius at an evening memorial service with sermon being held in a Catholic Church for one who had died out of her communion, was not without grounds. Such a thing savors of heterodoxy, not of Catholicism, which does not allow such things to be introduced into her public worship by private authority. If the priest who said Mass privately for the dead Queen had kept it to himself, nothing could have been said against him, but when he announced publicly that he had done it, it was much the same as if he had publicly announced beforehand that he was going to do it, and this is not tolerated by the usage of the Church. The Requiem Mass publicly offered for the dead Queen was contrary to the practice of the Church, which we should follow in all things, and against the express declaration of Gregory XVI, 16 Feb. 1842: “By both ancient and new discipline it is forbidden that persons who have died in the external and notorious profession of heresies be honored with Catholic rites.”

Caius, a missionary priest in England, while occupied with spiritual exercises, is troubled by scruples about the obligation to celebrate Mass by reason of a stipend. He therefore goes to a confessor, to whom he relates that he is accustomed to accept more Masses to be celebrated for stipends than he can satisfy. He is unwilling, however, to hand the stipends to another priest; hence sometimes he retains the stipend but does not celebrate the Mass, which he hopes is not mortal because of the small amount, for it does not exceed two shillings and sixpence. Sometimes also he defers for four or six months the celebration of a Mass due by reason of a stipend. Indeed, if it concerns stipends handed over by a certain pious association established to promote devotion toward the souls in purgatory for the souls of the departed in general, without scruple he defers the due celebration of the Mass beyond six months. Hence it is asked:

1. Whence arises the obligation to celebrate Mass by reason of an accepted stipend, and is it a grave obligation?

2. Within what time must a Mass be celebrated by reason of a stipend?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Whence arises the obligation of saying Mass by reason of accepting a stipend, and is the obligation a grave one?

The obligation of saying Mass for the intention of the person who has given a stipend arises from a contract which the priest enters into with the giver, and from ecclesiastical law. It is not a contract of buying and selling, but an innominate contract — Do ut facias. The stipend is given for the support of the priest, and the priest undertakes to apply Mass for the intention of the giver. The obligation is a grave one of justice, as the nature of the obligation, the intention of the parties, and the law of the Church make manifest. Innocent XII commanded that “ absolutely let as many Masses be celebrated as shall have been prescribed by those offering alms.”

2. Within what time is Mass to be said for which a stipend has been given?

The decree S. C. C. Ut debita, 11th May 1904, answers this question:

“ A reasonable period for fulfilling obligations of manual Masses is one month for one Mass, six months for one hundred Masses, and another longer or shorter span of time, more or less according to the greater or smaller number of Masses.”

3. The case. In accepting more stipends for Masses than he can satisfy Caius transgressed the decree S. C. C., Ut debita, which prescribes:

Case.—Leo, the pastor of a suburban church, has during the past year omitted Mass very frequently. His habit is to say Mass on Sundays and Holidays, and not to go near the church during the rest of the week. His excuse is that he is only obliged to offer the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays; his people are not obliged to hear Mass on week days; that the church is distant from the rectory (about 10 minutes’ walk); that he needs the rest. It so happens that the thriving town in which he is located has a fairly large Catholic population, and many of the people would be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of receiving Holy Communion daily. In fact the people criticise the pastor in this matter and desire a change.

Question.—What do you think of Leo’s attitude?

Solution.—It is hardly necessary to state that a priest who has charge of souls must see to it that the members of his flock can fulfil their obligation on Sundays and feasts of precept. On this point no fault can be found with Leo. In doing this he likewise satisfies the obligation that springs from his reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. By reason of his priesthood every priest is obliged to celebrate Mass several times a year (New Code of Canon Law No. 805). No account is to be taken of an obligation ex stipendio, as no mention is made of this in the statement of the case. There are two points that remain for consideration: The first is the existence of synodal or diocesan decrees made by the Bishop for the government of his diocese; the second is the custom in the diocese in conjunction with the needs and wishes of the people. There are dioceses where daily Mass is a matter of synodal or episcopal legislation. But evidently Leo’s diocese is not one in this category. For we can easily presume that he would not openly and wantonly disobey for so long a time in a matter of such extreme importance. Nor would such a breach of ecclesiastical discipline long escape the notice of the head of the diocese, who no doubt would not be slow in correcting such scandalous contumacity. Hence Leo’s action can only be judged by the second consideration—the needs of his flock.

Without fear of contradiction we can say that where many of his flock are anxious for daily Mass, then he is obliged to provide it for them. His obligation to care for their souls does not cease automatically at noon on Sunday. Every spiritual benefit that can accrue from Sunday Mass can also come to the faithful on week days through their reverential assistance at week-day Mass. He is obliged to foster the spiritual life in his parishioners; by his attitude he is neglecting this duty: he is depriving them of the immense spiritual advantage not only of the Mass, but of frequent Communion; he is thus doing them an irreparable harm. He is violating the wish of the Holy Father expressed so strongly in his decree on daily Communion. Nor can we fail to point out the fact that he is depriving God of the great honor and glory given to Him whenever the Holy Sacrifice is offered. This alone would be sufficient to condemn his slothfulness. Of the excuses given by him there is not a single one that saves him from just condemnation. Not a single one is worth a moment’s pause when weighed against the harm and the scandal that must necessarily spring from an attitude so worldly and so selfish. The people are justified in their criticism. Their desire is legitimate, and they are entitled to demand daily Mass as the means required for the fulfilment of their laudable desire of daily Communion. They should seek a change of policy or a change of pastor. Now this does not imply that a priest even in such a parish is bound to say Mass every single day of the year. For whenever a sufficient reason operates it will excuse. But such a reason will not be a permanent one (except in case of permanent disability—and then the pastor should supply another priest to take his place). Hence a priest, without sin of any kind, may omit daily Mass from time to time when grave inconvenience, sickness, etc., prevent. Where the reasonable custom exists, or the people—at least many of them—demand daily Mass, then no pastor can permanently omit this daily Mass without sinfully neglecting his duty. We are of the opinion that Leo is guilty of gross neglect of duty and sins grievously against the virtue of charity in refusing daily Mass to those of his flock who are anxious, as faithful Catholics, to have it.