The Obligation of Saying Mass

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.

359. 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, Luke 22:19: 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 the Sacrifice. Moreover, all priests receive in their ordination not only the power, but also the charge and office of sacrificing annexed to it. Hence the Apostle, Heb. 5:1: For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices. Moreover, in a grave matter everyone is gravely bound to discharge the charge he has undertaken. Therefore.... - Thus St. Thomas, part 3, q. 82, art. 10. - See St. Lig., no. 313.

360. Questions. - QUESTION 1. How often in his life or in a year is a priest bound to celebrate?

Reply. It is not clearly established. More probably, he does not seem bound to celebrate except three or four times in the year, namely, on the more solemn feasts. Indeed, it does not appear improbable that a priest has sufficiently fulfilled his office if, on whatever days they may be, he offers the Sacrifice three or four times in the year. - St. Lig., no. 313.

QUESTION 2. Is one who celebrates only four times in the year exempt from every sin?

Reply. Negatively. For he does not seem excusable from at least some venial sin. Thus commonly, according to the mind of the Council of Trent, sess. 25, ch. 14, De Reform., where it is said: Let the Bishop take care that they (the priests) celebrate Mass at least on Sundays and solemn feasts. Indeed, holy mother Church desires that a priest offer the Sacrifice every day, and devout priests are accustomed to omit it very rarely.

Hence St. Lig., no. 359, deservedly concludes: Wherefore, I would not know how to excuse from light fault that priest who could celebrate daily (one day of the week excepted out of reverence), and who, without any just cause, but solely from sloth, abstained from celebrating; for a 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 saying of the Apostle: EVERY HIGH PRIEST taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Deservedly, therefore, the author of the excellent work The Imitation of Christ says, bk. 4, ch. 5: When a priest celebrates, he honors God, gladdens the Angels, edifies the Church, assists the living, affords rest to the dead, and makes himself a partaker of all good things. Thus also St. Bonaventure, On Preparation for Mass, ch. 5: A priest who does not celebrate, so far as lies in him, deprives the Trinity of praise and glory, the Angels of joy, sinners of pardon, the just of assistance and grace, those existing in Purgatory of refreshment, the Church of Christ of a special benefit, and himself of medicine and remedy against daily sins and infirmities.

The obligation of celebrating Mass can arise from a sixfold title, namely: 1. from the priestly order received; 2. from office; 3. from a benefice; 4. from a stipend; 5. from a promise; 6. from obedience.

251. Principle. Every priest is bound to celebrate Mass several times a year, unless he is legitimately impeded.

Thus holds the opinion which today is common and certain;³¹⁹ theologians disagree, however, whether this obligation is grave for each priest and whether it arises from divine law or from ecclesiastical law.

a) Concerning the existence of this obligation, St. Thomas argues in this manner:³²⁰ "Some have said that a priest can licitly abstain altogether from consecrating, unless he is bound, by reason of the care committed to him, to celebrate and to furnish the sacraments to the people.³²¹ But this is said irrationally, because each one is bound to use the grace given to him when it is opportune, according to the saying: 'We exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.'³²² But the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not only in comparison with the faithful of Christ, to whom it is necessary that the sacraments be ministered, but principally in comparison with God, to whom sacrifice is offered in the consecration of this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for a priest, even if he does not have the care of souls, to cease altogether from celebrating; but it seems at least that he is bound to celebrate on the principal feasts."

³¹⁹ The Code of Canon Law, c. 805, establishes: "All priests are held by the obligation of offering the Sacred Mysteries several times a year; the bishop or religious superior, however, is to take care that they perform the divine rites at least on each Sunday and on the other feasts of precept."

³²⁰ S. theol. 3, q. 82, a. 10.

³²¹ This seems to be the opinion of St. Bonaventure, In 4, dist. 12, part 2, a. 2, q. 1, but the Seraphic Doctor does not speak so clearly in this place, and elsewhere he seems to intimate quite the contrary (De praep. ad Miss. c. 5).

³²² 2 Cor. 6:1.

252. b) Concerning the gravity of this obligation, nearly all authors, at least the moderns, agree, teaching that every priest who is not legitimately excused is bound under grave sin to celebrate Mass sometimes. For it concerns a grave matter. Certain older theologians, however, held the contrary, especially Cajetan³²³ and Lugo.³²⁴ St. Alphonsus³²⁵ teaches that every priest is bound under grave sin to celebrate Mass at least three or four times a year on the more solemn feasts, unless he is legitimately impeded. Therefore, those priests who are reported to have lived in the desert for a long time, or who for some other reason abstained from celebrating for an entire year, as did St. Ignatius Loyola, must be said to have done this with due ecclesiastical permission. Per accidens, for example, because of scandal arising therefrom or because of contempt for the sacrifice, a priest who does not celebrate Mass for a long time sins gravely without any doubt.

³²³ Commentary on S. theol. 3, q. 82, a. 10.

³²⁴ De euchar., disp. 20, n. 2.

³²⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 313.

253. c) Concerning the source of this grave obligation, namely, whether it arises from divine law or from ecclesiastical law, it is not established. Without prejudice to the Catholic faith, it cannot be denied that Christ imposed upon the whole priestly order the command of celebrating Mass.³²⁶ This indeed manifestly follows from the words of the Savior: "Do this in commemoration of Me"; but it is uncertain whether this divine command binds each priest under grave sin. The negative opinion, which is held by Lugo,³²⁷ St. Bonaventure,³²⁸ Ballerini-Palmieri,³²⁹ and others, seems probable, because the Church can permit a priest or even a bishop to be reduced to lay Communion and never again to celebrate Mass.³³⁰ But if every priest were bound by divine law under grave sin to celebrate Mass, such an indult would not be so easily explained.

Today there exists throughout the world the laudable custom that every priest celebrate Mass daily, unless he is legitimately impeded. Wherefore a priest who rather frequently omits Mass without an urgent cause can scarcely avoid scandal. St. Bonaventure³³¹ says fittingly: "A priest who does not celebrate, insofar as lies in him, deprives the Trinity of praise and glory; those existing in purgatory of refreshment; the Church of Christ of a special benefit; and himself of medicine and a remedy against daily sins and infirmities." Similar words are found in the book The Imitation of Christ:³³² "When a priest celebrates, he honors God, gladdens the angels, edifies the Church, assists the living, affords rest to the deceased, and makes himself a participant in all good things."

³²⁶ Thus Benedict XIV, De sacrif. Missae, sect. 2, n. 3.

³²⁷ De euchar., disp. 20, n. 2.

³²⁸ In 4, dist. 12, part 2, a. 2, q. 1.

³²⁹ IV, n. 1005.

³³⁰ Cf. the example of Talleyrand and the Code of Canon Law, c. 211 ff.

³³¹ De praep. ad Miss., c. 5.

³³² Book 4, c. 5.

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

1617. Masses can be founded either for a time, or in perpetuity. Wherefore we note from the sacred Canons the following:

1. Perpetual burdens of Masses cannot be undertaken by secular priests without the written license of the Bishop or Vicar General. - But among Regulars, license of the Superior General or Provincial is required, as is clear from the decree Cum saepe of the S. C. of the Council, issued by the authority of Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII through the Bull Nuper in the year 1697.

2. A beneficiary who has a benefice or chaplaincy with the burden of Masses ought, notwithstanding any custom whatever, to apply those Masses for the founders, or to their intention. - But indeed "when, in the foundation of a benefice or chapel, it has been expressly provided that the celebrant is not held to application of the Sacrifice, in that case the celebrant will be able to accept a new stipend, and by one Mass satisfy the obligation of the benefice or chapel, and likewise the one giving the new stipend." Decree of the S. C. C., July 13, 1630.¹ - "But when it had been asked from the S. C. on March 18, 1668, whether Masses ought to be applied for the testator when in the testament nothing had been declared concerning application, the S. C. C. responded that they are to be applied for the testator. - And the same was declared, on February 6, 1627, concerning chaplains who celebrate so that confreres or Nuns may be present at the Mass; since it is said that they cannot receive a stipend."² Moreover, "unless it is expressed in the institution of the chaplaincy that the chaplain celebrate by himself, he can always celebrate through another."³

3. Chaplains, Beneficiaries, etc., who from the law of foundation are held to apply Mass only on feast days, are still bound to apply on reduced feasts, as pastors are; for reduced feasts are always held in the Church as feasts of precept. Thus from the Letters Paternae charitati of Pius VII, April 10, 1818⁴ (cf. also n. 891, 1).

4. Canons, in cathedral and collegiate Churches, ought to celebrate daily the conventual Mass for their benefactors; although these, in their donations, had made absolutely no agreement for themselves, but had only declared that they offered their goods to God for the remission of their sins; and although contrary custom, even immemorial, flourished somewhere. - Indeed, where the custom flourishes of applying a second or even third Mass for them, the Bishop ought to command that this custom be kept holily; but where it does not flourish, at least in the Memento of the second and third conventual Mass, let a commemoration of them be made. Thus Benedict XIV, Const. Cum semper.⁵

5. A priest who, on account of a benefice or chaplaincy, is held to celebrate daily can, from the common opinion, sometimes omit the celebration of Mass if a legitimate cause intervenes, for example devotion, reverence toward the Sacrifice, or infirmity not exceeding 15 days, indeed, Lugo says probably, even if the infirmity were prolonged for two months. He can also probably, provided he does not accept a stipend, celebrate four or six times in the year for himself or for a very dear friend; for this is reasonably presumed from the mind of the founder. Otherwise, however, if he had expressed the contrary; for example by saying: "I will that Mass be celebrated daily, by the chaplain or by another"; or also: "I will that, in such a church, Mass be celebrated daily," etc.⁶

6. It is not licit to celebrate founded Masses in another church, on another altar, or at another hour than those which were established by the founder. Nor is this obligation light if the founder stipulated circumstances of this kind on account of a grave cause, for example on account of the memory or convenience of his own family, or of the people. But if no special end gave occasion to the stipulation, or if the cause why it was made no longer exists, for example if the family is extinct, or if it dwells elsewhere: the aforesaid obligation will not be grave; indeed, it will be null if the priest compensates it by celebrating on a privileged altar.⁷ Otherwise, the obligation is so grave that the priest would sin mortally if he often, or without cause, or without dispensation, omitted or changed those circumstances. "I said often; for he will sin only venially if he does it rarely, say once or twice in the month; and he is more easily excused if he changes only the altar, and not the church. Likewise, I said without cause; for he will by no means sin if he celebrates elsewhere from a just cause, say if the altar is execrated, or because, having come out of the sacristy, he saw that it was occupied by another. - Likewise, I said without dispensation; for the BISHOP can well dispense that celebration be made in another place, from a reasonable cause, say on account of the utility of one's own church, etc."⁸ For this faculty belongs to Bishops, as Delegates of the Holy See, as is commonly drawn from Trent.⁹ But where the transfer is opposed to the express will of the testator, or to divine worship, or to the convenience of the people, it is not customarily conceded by the S. Congregation of the Council, and in that case Bishops cannot dispense.¹⁰

1618. It is asked: Whether PRESCRIPTION can be made against burdens of Masses?

Resp. Some affirm; "but, according to the truer opinion, such prescription is not admitted, since in Trent¹¹ it is forbidden that derogation can be made from all burdens imposed, both in foundation and in any other pious disposition or conferral of benefices; and Pius IV in the Bull by which he confirmed the Council declared void whatever might be done in the future against it.... But an irritating clause binds even the ignorant, and in beneficial causes infects title and possession. At least we say, in practice the first opinion can be probable with difficulty, since good faith can with difficulty be presumed in beneficiaries, since it is rather presumed that they know the laws of the benefice."¹²

Note. - 1. Authors notice that it is most opportune that any priest note in a book the Masses accepted and the Masses celebrated by himself, so that thus, even in the case of unexpected death, all things become known to the heirs. 2. But this is altogether prescribed by Innocent XII to all rectors and ministers of churches, whether secular or regular, that each year they be able to render an account to their Superiors concerning Masses celebrated, whether they are perpetual, temporary, or even manual. - And moreover, the table of perpetual and temporary burdens must be exposed in a more visible and obvious place, to guard against burdens of Masses being undertaken beyond their strength, from the Bull Nuper.

1619. REDUCTION of Masses is properly called that by which burdens of Masses are constrained to a lesser number for future time, whether this is done in perpetuity or for an established time. - When reduction is referred to past time and imports the omitted celebration of Masses, then it is properly called remission, absolution, and CONDONATION.¹³

1620. Principles. I. Reduction of Masses, today, can be made only by the APOSTOLIC SEE, but not by the Bishop, nor by a regular prelate. - This is evident from the Constitution Nuper of Innocent XII, § 1, where it is said thus: "It is strictly prohibited that Bishops... in any way reduce any burdens of Masses to be celebrated, either imposed after the same Council or at the threshold of foundation; but for all these to be reduced, moderated, or commuted, recourse is to be had to the Apostolic See."¹⁴ The same applies both concerning condonation and concerning concession of a longer time for fulfilling burdens of Masses.¹⁵ Only in a twofold case does the right of reducing Masses belong to Bishops: 1. if the testator himself has granted this faculty to the Bishop; 2. if the Holy See has conceded such privilege to Bishops, as frequently obtains.

1621. II. Reduction or condonation of Masses can be made only when a JUST CAUSE intervenes. This is evident of itself. - "But the CAUSES from which the Apostolic See is accustomed to reduce Masses are scarcity of priests, smallness of stipend, or increase of the current stipend, diminution of the revenues of a monastery, or greater expenses necessary for living, etc.; finally if necessity of the brethren, or of the fabric of the church or monastery, urges."¹⁶

Note. For obtaining reduction or condonation, recourse is made to the Holy See, through the S. C. of the Council, or through the Fabric of St. Peter. - But when the Holy See grants CONDONATION on account of just causes, it always imposes some salutary penance, and especially the penance of celebrating a certain number of Masses. - Moreover, it supplies from its spiritual treasury whatever has been sinned in fulfilling the burdens; and for the suffrage of souls for whom the omitted Sacrifices ought to have been offered, it commands that a suitable number of Masses be celebrated daily by the chaplains assigned to this office in the Vatican Basilica. But if someone, with the intention of obtaining a condonation of this kind, has presumed to omit the celebration of Masses, in this case, the grace in no way suffices, and hope of this kind, as irrational and illicit, is condemned and reprobated.¹⁷

If it concerns only the internal forum, that is, if someone omitted either founded or adventitious Masses without the omission being publicly established, and has become unable to satisfy: for condonation, recourse can be made to the S. Penitentiary, namely through the confessor, who ought to conceal the name of the penitent.

1622. III. To Bishops belongs the faculty of INTERPRETING, in doubt, the will of founders, and of reducing burdens of Masses undertaken by contract to equity. For in these things Bishops use their judicial power, which is proper to ordinary jurisdiction; wherefore, if they pronounce concerning an obligation constituted or not constituted, concerning a burden resolved or not resolved, etc., they do not exceed the limits prescribed to them by common law. Nor then is there place for reduction at the Holy See (cf. n. 1083 and 1087, q. 2).

It is asked: Whether sometimes a chaplain, or beneficiary, can by himself diminish the number of Masses?

Resp. "If the revenues fail in whole, without his fault, it is certain he is not held to celebrate Masses," as is commonly taught and as the S. C. C. defined.¹⁸ "But if the revenues fail in part, it also seems certain that the chaplain can diminish Masses, in the case in which the testator designated a suitable alms, for example three small coins for each Mass; because then, just as the number of Masses would have to be increased if the revenues were increased, so it is to be diminished if the revenues are diminished."¹⁹

NB. It is greatly to be desired that those who impose perpetual burdens of Masses, in the very act of foundation, grant to the beneficiary or Bishop the faculty of reducing their number, in the case in which the revenues are diminished.

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.

362. The obligation of celebrating can arise from various sources: from the priesthood itself received, from an office undertaken or a benefice possessed, from a stipend handed over, from a particular precept or vow.

S. Th. III, q. 82, a. 10.

363. The principal obligation of celebrating arises from priesthood. - Christ imposed upon priests a grave precept of celebrating the sacrifice, as is most certain, both from His own words: Do this in commemoration of me, which the Council of Trent explains thus, sess. 22, c. 1; and from the nature of the priestly power, which is given by God so that in the name of all He may be honored and for all the graces of salvation may be procured: but such a power certainly was instituted that it might be exercised.

That precept obliges at least the community of priests (ibid., can. 2); but whether that precept, or even another ecclesiastical one, obliges individual priests by reason of priesthood, has been called into doubt by some. Now, however, they generally admit that a grave obligation rests upon individual priests, because each one is bound to use the grace given to him when it is opportune, especially if it yields to the great honor of God and the usefulness of the whole society; but such is the power of the priest, which, unless he exercised it, would be frustrated of its end. Besides, we all must acknowledge God's dominion through sacrifice (II, n. 698); but it seems disordered if a priest, who has received the power of doing this through his own sacrifice (Hebr. V, 1), should never do it except by the sacrifice of others. This is consonant with the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 14, and the decree of the S. C. C., Nov. 1696. And in the Code of Law it is now said, can. 805: "All priests are held by the obligation of offering the Holy Sacrifice several times a year."

The obligation is grave because of the gravity of the matter; nevertheless it suffices that someone celebrate on the principal feasts or, as others say, three or four times in the year, due distance being observed; but if he did not do this, it would easily be a grave scandal to the faithful.

364. Observation. - It is altogether fitting that priests celebrate more often, especially on individual Sundays and feasts, whence in the aforesaid can. 805 it is added: "But let the bishop or religious superior take care that they [priests] perform divine things at least on individual Sundays and other feasts of precept"; to omit this could rather easily seem scandalous to the Christian people. Indeed, says St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 559, that one who can celebrate daily and, where the custom of celebrating daily flourishes, without any just cause, but only from sloth, neglects to celebrate, can scarcely be excused from venial fault. Not so, however, if from a reasonable motive, for example of greater preparation, reverence, humility, or true inconvenience, he sometimes abstains from celebrating.

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).