The Rite of Celebration

It does not belong to this place to teach the rites according to which the sacrifice of the Mass is to be offered from the prescription of the Church; rather, concerning the rites themselves or concerning the liturgical precepts which are of greater moment, it must be indicated, as far as can be done, whether they oblige under grave sin or under light sin. The rubrics of the Missal set forth the rites to be observed in the celebration of Mass.

208. On the Missal and its rubrics. 1. In the Latin Church Mass must be celebrated in the Latin language according to the rubrics of the Roman Missal, cn. 819.

The supreme pontiff Pius V, in the bull which is prefixed to the Missal published by his order, establishes two things: first he prohibits the use of other missals, unless they are granted from special privilege; then he commands that Mass be celebrated according to the rubrics contained there.¹ In recent time the S. C. C. took care that a typical edition of the Roman Missal be published, to which all future editions of the same must be exactly conformed.² The Code has these things: With any contrary custom reprobated, the celebrating priest is to observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of his ritual books, cn. 818. The sacrifice of the Mass must be celebrated in the liturgical language of each one's rite, cn. 819.

2. Some rubrics of the Missal are preceptive, others directive (n. 20). The rubrics which indicate the rites to be observed in the celebration itself are preceptive under grave or under light sin according to their matter; but the rubrics which indicate rites to be observed outside, i.e., before or after Mass, are directive.

a. The very common opinion both among ancient and among recent theologians, which distinguishes the rubrics of the Missal and of other liturgical books into preceptive and directive, must by all means be held; nor are some recent rubricists to be heard who want absolutely all rubrics to be preceptive.³

b. Although directive rubrics of themselves do not oblige in conscience, nevertheless in violating them venial sin can easily be committed, namely where they are not observed without a reasonable motive.

¹ Const. Quo primum, 19 July 1570.

² Const. Officiorum ac munerum, 25 Jan. 1897, n. 18.

³ Cf. Civilta cattolica, 1891, IV, p. 34 ff.

209. On the omission of rites. In order that it may be determined which omission in the celebration of Mass is grave and which is light, one must distinguish between the ordinary parts of Mass, which must always be performed, such as the confession, epistle, proper prayers, offertory, breaking of the host, mixture of this with the blood, etc., and extraordinary parts, which are not said in every Mass, such as the Gloria, Creed, commemorations, sequence, and those things which in the preface and canon are proper to certain feasts.¹

1. The omission of an ordinary part can easily become a grave sin, especially if it occurs in the canon of the Mass, which is more closely connected with the sacrifice of the Mass; thus it is grave to omit any prayer of the canon or to change its words in such a way that the sense is varied.

Authors attempt to determine more accurately which omissions, especially in the canon, should be judged grave; but in determining these they do not agree. Thus, for committing a grave sin, some require that two, others that ten names of saints in the canon be omitted.² "Nor do those more minute determinations of grave or light omission," as Genicot well notes (II, n. 241), "have much bearing on practice: since no one is accustomed by direct will to pass over a part of the Mass; but if some omit certain things through culpable negligence, their guilt is to be judged from the general cause of omissions which they culpably posit, not from the omissions which in fact happened."

2. The omission of an extraordinary part does not exceed venial sin, because these parts are less closely connected with the sacrifice of the Mass; thus it is venial to omit the Creed or the sequence or the prophecies on Ember days, or even the Passion in Holy Week: for with respect to the Mass this seems to be called a part that is not notable, and therefore, with a grave cause existing (as if otherwise the people on a feast day would lack Mass) and scandal excluded, it could be omitted without sin. If, however, several parts at once were omitted, grave matter could be reached.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 404.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 405.

210. On the addition of rites. 1. In the celebration of Mass, to add something to the rites to be performed from the prescription of the Missal, with the mind of introducing a new rite, or without this mind but in notable quantity, especially if prayers are added which are not contained in the Missal, is a grave sin.

The Council of Trent prohibits priests from employing "other rites or other ceremonies and prayers in the celebration of Masses, besides those which have been approved by the Church";¹ and Pius V prohibits priests from presuming to add or recite in the celebration of Mass other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal.² These prohibitions are to be understood principally of an addition which is made with the mind of introducing a new rite.

2. It is not licit from private devotion or from some private necessity to add a collect or something of this kind to the rites or prayers of the Missal.

"Let the celebrating priest take care," cn. 818 has, "lest he join other ceremonies or prayers by his own judgment." From these words the opinion of those authors (St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, D'Annibale, Genicot) loses probability, who thought that from private devotion or from some private necessity to add a prayer from those which are in the Missal is not a sin.

3. To interpose a short ejaculatory prayer, either orally or by mind alone, among the liturgical prayers themselves is certainly to be disapproved; but to add prayers of this kind between individual prayers, while the priest, e.g., makes the elevation of the species, incenses, genuflects, etc., is not a sin, even if it is done orally, since this is not properly contrary to the rubrics.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 22, decree Quanta cura, De observ. et evitand. in celebr. missae.

² Const. Quo primum, 19 July 1570.

211. On some requisites for celebrating. 1. It is not licit to celebrate Mass except on an altar, whether fixed or portable, at least mobile, i.e., at least on a consecrated stone.¹

The privilege of celebrating without a consecrated stone is not usually granted even to missionaries.² But the privilege which belongs to bishops by common law, of celebrating from a just cause in any decent place provided a consecrated stone is present, is granted to other priests by special indult of the Holy See.

2. In the celebration of Mass a Missal is required, so that to celebrate without a Missal is of itself a grave sin on account of the danger of erring; but it is not prescribed that the Mass be read, not even the canon, if the moral danger of erring is excluded.

He does not sin who once or twice, even from devotion alone, celebrates without a Missal where this cannot easily be had, provided he knows with moral certitude that he will not err. To avoid the wonder of the people, in this case another sacred book should be placed on the altar.

3. The cross with the image of the crucified, standing out among the candlesticks, so that the priest and the people can easily look upon it, must be present on the altar:³ for the cross with the image of the crucified recalls to the priest and faithful the sacrifice of the cross, which is renewed on the altar.

It is an abuse to be removed by the ordinary, if anywhere a small cross is placed either on the tabernacle or on the little door of the tabernacle in place of the cross to be placed among the candlesticks.⁴

If, however, on the altar there is a large image of Christ crucified, whether sculpted or painted, it is not necessary to add another cross.⁵

4. During the whole time of Mass there must burn on the altar two candles made from beeswax,⁶ nor is it licit by reason of the dignity of the celebrant, if he is inferior to a bishop, to light more than two.⁷

a. To celebrate without any light is a grave sin, unless it is done in the necessity of confecting viaticum for a dying person.

To celebrate with one candle is venial; wherefore for a reasonable cause it is licit to celebrate with only one candle. If the light fails before the consecration and another cannot be had, the sacred rite must be stopped; if it fails after the consecration has been begun, the sacred rite must be completed; but if another light can be had within a quarter of an hour, one must wait. - If the candles are extinguished during celebration, they must be lit again, yet without the sacred rite being interrupted in the meantime.⁸

b. Under grave sin candles must be made from beeswax, and indeed without any admixture of foreign matter, whether vegetable or mineral. Since, however, today foreign substances are frequently mixed even into the wax from which candles are formed, and adulterated candles are sold as genuine, the Holy See, considering the great difficulty of having genuine beeswax, established these things: Let bishops take care according to their powers 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 for the greatest part; but the material of the other candles which are to be placed above altars ought to be from the same wax in greater or notable quantity.⁹

There are those who permit that, when wax is lacking and necessity exists,¹⁰ indeed once or twice from devotion alone, celebration can take place with a light from oil.¹¹ More easily it can be permitted that this be done with candles made from stearin or another material, which today can scarcely be distinguished from candles made from beeswax. For although the reason on account of which the Church prescribes candles made from wax is chiefly symbolic, nevertheless there is added also a reason of decency, on account of which authors say that to celebrate with tallow candles (Unschlitt) is mortal.¹²

c. By reason of solemnity, namely if the Mass is not strictly private, but conventual or parochial or solemn or holding the place of a solemn one, it is licit to light more candles, which likewise must be from wax; nor is it permitted that for worship or upon the altar, besides candles from wax, there be used candles from stearin¹³ or illumination from gas¹⁴ or electric light.¹⁵

5. In celebration there is required under grave sin a male server, except in a case of necessity; wherefore each of these is of itself grave: both to celebrate without a server, and to admit a woman serving at the altar, even if she is a nun.

a. Cases of necessity are: alpha. that viaticum may be confected; beta. that the people may satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite; gamma. that the priest himself on days of precept may be able to satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite; delta. if the server, the oblation having already been made, departs and does not return.¹⁶

b. Priests, however, to whom a special faculty of celebrating without a server is granted (as happens in missions), licitly use this faculty if otherwise they cannot celebrate.

c. In order that celebration may take place with a server who does not know how to respond, a lesser necessity of celebrating is required.

d. If the server pronounces badly, the priest himself, if it can conveniently be done, should supply; if this cannot be done, he should abstain without scruple from every correction, lest he disturb himself or others.

6. When a just cause exists, it can be permitted that a woman respond from a distance to the priest who has first arranged all things necessary for Mass, yet without approaching the altar.

Formerly the S. C. R. permitted the ministry of a woman of this kind only in urgent necessity;¹⁷ but in recent time it no longer requires a necessity of celebrating in order that a woman may be able to respond to the priest, yet it does not determine more accurately the cause which is required for this.¹⁸ Since now it is established,¹⁹ "when a man is lacking, a woman can serve from a just cause, yet under this law, that she respond from a distance and in no way approach the altar," it seems one must say that a priest, with a woman responding, especially if she is a nun and Mass is said in the chapel of nuns, can celebrate if otherwise because of the lack of a server he would have to omit celebration, even if there is not a greater necessity of celebrating.

¹ Cn. 822.

² S. C. prop. fid., 2 Sept. 1870.

³ General rubrics of the Missal, n. XX. Ceremonial of Bishops, l. 1, c. 12.

⁴ S. C. R., 18 Sept. 1822, n. 2621.

⁵ S. C. R., 16 June 1663, n. 1270.

⁶ General rubrics of the Missal, n. 44.

⁷ S. C. R., 7 Sept. 1850, n. 2984.

⁸ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 394; D'Annibale, III, 400.

⁹ S. C. R., 14 Dec. 1904, n. 4147.

¹⁰ Suarez, disp. 81, sec. 6, n. 5.

¹¹ Gobat, Exper. theol., tract. 3, n. 291.

¹² St. Alphonsus, n. 394; in missions sometimes license is granted of using candles made from the fat of the whale.

¹³ S. C. R., 4 Sept. 1815, n. 3376.

¹⁴ S. C. R., 16 May 1901.

¹⁵ S. C. R., 24 June 1914. Concerning electric light these are the decrees: Electric light is forbidden not only together with candles from wax above altars, but also in place of candles or lamps which are prescribed before the most holy Sacrament or Relics of the saints. Nor is it licit at the time of exposition to illuminate the interior part of the ciborium with electric lamps placed in the interior part itself. For other places of the church and other cases electric illumination is permitted, provided that in all things there is preserved the gravity which the sanctity of the place and the dignity of the sacred liturgy demand.

¹⁶ St. Alphonsus, n. 391.

¹⁷ S. C. R., 27 Aug. 1836, n. 2745.

¹⁸ Cf. Gasparri, I, n. 649.

¹⁹ Cn. 813, 2.

212. On the interruption of Mass. Mass must be celebrated without interruption in a continuous course. A twofold interruption is distinguished: essential, when the sacrifice of the Mass, once begun, remains incomplete, as if it is interrupted between the consecration (of one species) and communion, and afterward cannot be continued; and accidental, when the parts of Mass are separated one from another by an intervening extraneous action.

1. To interrupt Mass essentially, or rather to break it off, is never licit, unless danger of death or profanation of the most holy Eucharist is imminent.

If Mass must be broken off after the consecration of one species, the priest can, with the consecration of the chalice omitted, consume the host already consecrated or carry it away with himself together with the chalice to be consecrated in another place. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him consume both species immediately if he can, or, if he cannot, let him carry them away with himself to a safe place to be consumed afterward.

2. To interrupt Mass accidentally is licit from a just cause, and indeed:

a. After the Gospel it is licit to interrupt it for having a sermon, for reciting prayers for the departed, for receiving a procession, for making the proclamation of banns, etc.

b. Before the offertory it is licit to interrupt it at the arrival of a prince, of pilgrims, of a procession, if those arriving otherwise cannot hear Mass on a feast day. In this case the priest can begin Mass again, so that the faithful may hear the complete Mass.

c. Before the canon it is licit to break it off if the priest himself remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, that he is irregular, etc., or if a person excommunicated by name is present who cannot be expelled.

d. Once the canon has begun, and a fortiori once the consecration has been completed, it is licit to interrupt Mass only from a most grave cause, as if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not licit to minister other sacraments between consecration and communion, because they are not of so great necessity.

alpha. Mass is licitly interrupted also on account of a necessity proper to the celebrating priest, e.g., because of a briefly passing illness, or because of a necessity of relieving himself which cannot be deferred until the end of Mass.

beta. A priest interrupting Mass must see to it that the sacrament meanwhile is guarded, and therefore that he enclose it in the tabernacle, if it is present.

gamma. Returning, the priest begins the Mass interrupted after the consecration where he had left off; and if it was interrupted before the consecration, if the interval interposed is less than one hour, he likewise begins where he had left off; but if the interval interposed is greater than one hour, he begins from the beginning, and indeed in such a way that, when the oblation has already been made, he receives new matter and consumes the matter previously offered after the sacred blood has been consumed.

e. After the communion of the celebrant, immediately before the distribution of Holy Communion, it is licit to have from the altar a brief exhortation to those communicating.¹

f. After communion it is likewise licit to interrupt Mass, so that religious vows may be emitted or renewed.

In all religious congregations of either sex in which vows are emitted or renewed within Mass, the norm established by general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites must be observed from the prescription of the Church.² This norm was taken from the constitution of Gregory XIII, Quanto fructuosius (1 Feb. 1583), by which the constitutions of the Society of Jesus are approved.

g. After the communion of the celebrant or within Mass it is not licit to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful who are so distant that he himself loses sight of the altar.³

Therefore the previously approved practice is prohibited, according to which in hospitals, after the Confiteor, etc., has been recited at the altar, the priest with the pyx, without a humeral veil, carries Holy Communion to the sick existing in rooms from which the altar cannot be seen.

¹ S. C. R., 16 Apr. 1853, n. 3009; 23 Mar. 1881, n. 3529.

² S. C. R., 14 Aug. 1894, n. 3836; S. C. R., 5 June 1896, n. 3912.

³ Cn. 868.

213. On completing an interrupted sacrifice. If a priest fails from illness while celebrating, these things must be observed:

1. If he fails after the consecration of the first species and before the consumption of the most precious blood, another priest, even one not fasting, if one fasting is not present, must complete the sacrifice, because the divine precept concerning procuring the integrity of the sacrifice is graver than the precept of ecclesiastical fasting. Even an irregular or excommunicated priest must complete it.

If one hour is interposed between the breaking off of the sacrifice and its continuation, probably there no longer exists an obligation of seeking a priest who may complete the sacrifice, but what remains can be consumed in another Mass, because probably the moral union between the two parts of the Mass is lacking. Nevertheless, even after several hours, it is still licit to supply.¹

2. If the same priest who was seized by illness while celebrating can, after some interruption, complete the sacred rite, not another, even if fasting, but he himself, even if no longer fasting, should do this: for the divine precept, that the same one complete the sacred rite who began it, prevails over the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.²

3. If he fails before the consecration of the first species or after the consumption of the most precious blood, nothing must be supplied by another priest, because the sacrifice properly has either not yet been begun or has already been completed.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 355. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 549.

² Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 552.

214. On those things which are to be said in a clear voice or secretly.¹ 1. He who recites those things which by prescription of the rubric are to be said in a clear voice so low that those present can understand nothing, sins venially, because he violates a preceptive rubric.

2. In like manner he who recites those things which by prescription of the rubric are to be said secretly either too low, so that even with any impediment removed he cannot hear himself, or too high, so that he is heard even by those present, commits a venial sin, because he injures a preceptive rubric.

3. He sins gravely because he pronounces a great part of the canon in a very raised voice, or the words of consecration so low that he himself cannot hear them. The reason of the first is because he notably injures a preceptive rubric; the reason of the second is because he exposes the consecration to the danger of nullity.

Since a reasonable cause entirely excuses from observing those things which are prescribed only under venial sin, when a cause of this kind exists, those things which are to be said secretly can be said in a clear voice, and those things which of themselves would have to be said clearly can be said in a low voice.²

¹ Cf. General rubrics of the Missal, n. XVI.

² Cf. Gasparri, II, n. 848. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 254.

653. Declaration. 1. Matrimony can be contracted at any time of the year.¹ But there is a certain determined time in which the solemn blessing of nuptials is forbidden; this is called the ferial or closed time.

2. The closed time now is: a. from the first Sunday of Advent until the day of the Nativity inclusively; b. from Ash Wednesday until Easter Sunday inclusively.²

a. Therefore it is that time of the ecclesiastical year which is devoted to the recollection of the chief mysteries of the Christian religion and consequently, according to the mind of the Church, is to be dedicated especially to works of devotion, prayers, and penance.

b. In the closed time matrimony itself is not prohibited, but the solemn blessing of the bride, i.e. the votive Mass for spouses and the blessing of the bride which is contained in this Mass.

3. Nevertheless, ordinaries of places can, for a just cause and with the liturgical laws preserved, permit even the blessing of nuptials in the closed time, after admonishing the spouses that they abstain from excessive pomp.³

a. The prohibition of solemn nuptials had hitherto been treated as a prohibiting impediment under the name of closed or ferial time. In some dioceses, especially of Austria and Germany, not only the solemnities of nuptials, but the nuptials themselves were prohibited. This prohibition, contrary to common law, cannot any longer be maintained after the introduction of the new Code, especially because it would be equivalent to a prohibiting impediment, which ordinaries cannot establish, unless the prohibition is supported by immemorial custom.⁴

b. The liturgical laws prohibit the Mass for spouses: alpha. on Sundays; beta. on feasts of the first and second class; gamma. on privileged octaves of the first and second order; delta. on privileged ferias; epsilon. on the vigils of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost.

¹ Cn. 1108, 1.

² Cn. 1108, 2. Previously, especially before the Council of Trent, the closed time was extended much more broadly.

³ Cn. 1108, 3.

⁴ Cf. Linneborn, p. 392.

654. Declaration. 1. Matrimony between Catholics ought to be celebrated in the parish church with the sacred rite prescribed by the Church; it can be celebrated in another church or in an oratory, whether public or semi-public, only with the license of the ordinary or of the parish priest.

2. The ordinary can permit it to be celebrated in private houses only in an extraordinary case and from a just cause. He cannot permit it to be celebrated in the church or oratory of a seminary or of religious women, unless there is urgent necessity and suitable cautions have been applied.¹

a. Catholic spouses who have contracted a valid matrimony, but for whatever cause have not performed the sacred matrimonial rite (e.g. those contracting in mission places before two witnesses without the parish priest because of his absence), are held under grave obligation to supply it; in this case the declaration of consent and the formula of copulation, "I join you," etc., are omitted.

b. On the contrary, if infidel spouses, joined in a legitimate matrimony, are converted to the Catholic religion, they are to be advised to perform the sacred rite, but they are not to be obliged.

¹ Cn. 1109, 1, 2.

657. Declaration. The matrimonial rite comprises two things: a. the copulation; b. the nuptial blessing.

The matrimonial rite which is contained in the Roman Ritual¹ is not preceptive; therefore laudable provincial customs can be observed according to diocesan rituals.²

1. The copulation or joining of the spouses. The parish priest must ask each contracting party concerning consent, so that the witnesses can give testimony concerning the contracted matrimony.

Once he has understood the consent, he must copulate the spouses with these or similar words, according to the received use of the province: "I join you in matrimony in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The omission of these does not exceed a venial sin.

After the copulation has been performed, if nothing stands in the way, he must impart the nuptial blessing to the spouses.

The blessing of the ring, which is a sacramental, is not to be omitted. It can also be done in second nuptials, even if the same ring had already been used and blessed in the first. If the wedding ring is lost or broken, a new one can be blessed with the same ritual formula.

2. The nuptial blessing. a. Only he can give the nuptial blessing, either personally or through another, who can validly and licitly assist at the matrimony;³ for it is a function reserved to the parish priest.⁴ Therefore if another priest wishes to give it, he needs the license of the parish priest who can validly and licitly assist at the matrimony.

b. Where it is permitted by the prescription of the Church, it is always to be granted if the bride has not yet received it, whether she is a virgin, a widow, or deflowered, even if the bridegroom is a widower and has already once received the blessing.

c. The nuptial blessing is not to be given: if the bride is a widow and has already received the blessing; if the nuptials are celebrated in the closed time, even with the bishop permitting, yet it can afterward be supplied; if a mixed matrimony is contracted, even with dispensation of the supreme pontiff.

d. The votive Mass for spouses can be said only on account of the nuptial blessing; therefore it cannot be said where the blessing is not granted, even if by the rubrics a votive Mass could be said.

¹ Rituale Rom., tit. 7, c. 2.

² Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 1, De reform. matr.; Cn. 1100.

³ Cn. 1101, 2.

⁴ Cn. 462, 4.

Outside a case of necessity, in the celebration of marriage the rites prescribed in the ritual books approved by the Church, or received by laudable customs, are to be observed (canon 1100).¹ It is said:

I. Are to be observed; by these words a true obligation is understood, in conformity with the Council of Trent.² Moreover, the obligation is grave from its kind; concerning which St. Alphonsus notes that the omission of the words "I join you," etc., is rather probably light (VI, 899, 1094).

II. Rites... received. Now the rite from the Roman Ritual³ to be observed here is this:

The pastor, vested in surplice and white stole,⁴ should ask the man and woman about consent, each one individually in this way, in the vernacular speech: "N., do you wish to take N. here present as your lawful wife, according to the rite of Holy Mother Church?"⁵ Let the bridegroom respond: "I do." Then let the priest ask the bride: "N., do you wish to take N. here present as your lawful husband, according to the rite of Holy Mother Church?" Let the bride respond: "I do."

Once the mutual consent has been understood, let the priest bid them join right hands with one another, saying: "I join you in matrimony. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."⁶ Afterwards let him sprinkle them with holy water.

Then let him bless the ring.⁷ Next let the priest sprinkle the ring with holy water in the form of a cross; and the bridegroom, having received the ring from the hand of the priest, places it on the ring finger of the bride's left hand, with the priest saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Then let him add the versicles and the prayer Respice.

When these things have been completed, if the nuptials are to be blessed, the pastor should celebrate the Mass for the Bridegroom and Bride, as in the Roman Missal, with all things prescribed there being observed.⁸ The rite of the said blessing must now be discussed.

¹ Roman Ritual, title VII, chapter 2, n. 6.

² Session 7, canon 13, on the Sacraments in general.

³ Title VII, chapter 2, nn. 1-3.

⁴ If Mass immediately follows after the rite of celebration has been completed, the priest should put on the chasuble in addition to the alb and stole (Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1867, ad III, n. 3158).

⁵ "Or he may use other words according to the received rite of each place" (Roman Ritual, loc. cit., n. 2). "When several are joined at the same time, after first receiving the consent of each and duly celebrating each Marriage, and after the pastor has said for each, 'I join you in matrimony,' etc., the blessings are made once in the plural number" (Roman Ritual, loc. cit., n. 5).

⁶ See note 5.

⁷ The blessing of the ring is not to be omitted in second nuptials (cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 27, 1836, ad II, n. 2743), even if the same ring had already been used and blessed in order to another marriage. "When several are joined at the same time... nothing prevents the blessings of the rings and the remaining blessings from being made in common by general words" (Holy Office, September 1, 1841, 7, Collectanea, n. 938). If the nuptial ring is lost or broken, a new one can be blessed with the same form of the Roman Ritual. In not a few other dioceses, for example in Germany and in the East, a ring is blessed for each spouse.

⁸ Roman Ritual, loc. cit., n. 4.

1. Ambrose, a regular, administers a secular church, committed to him precariously by the Ordinary together with the care of souls. Although the people had up to now been accustomed to the feasts of the diocesan calendar, Ambrose nevertheless performs all the sacred functions according to the calendar of his own Order. Hence he also omits to celebrate the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron of the place. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1898, ad 2, n. 3979. Ambrose errs still more as to the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron. For the feast of the Dedication of a church is more solemn and primary, so that it is to be preferred to others, according to the General Decree of the S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1896, n. 3881. The feast of the Titular is to be celebrated by the whole clergy of the church, or by the priest rector assigned to the church or public oratory, through the entire office, and in defect of any clergy by Masses alone. General Decree of the S. R. C., June 5, 1899, n. 4025. But the feast of the Patron of the place is also generally to be observed by regulars. General Decree of the S. R. C., July 9, 1895, n. 3863.

2. On Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament. - Onuphrius, a parish priest, without any scruple celebrates Mass, when occasion is given, at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, and at it distributes communion to the people. For he says that no difficulty can be present in this matter, since it is altogether fitting that the most holy sacrifice be offered at that altar on which the most holy Eucharist is exposed.

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

R. Onuphrius does not act rightly. For by several Decrees of the S. R. C. it is prohibited that Mass be celebrated at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed without necessity, or without grave cause, or without immemorial custom, or without a special indult. By the same Decrees it is also prohibited to distribute sacred communion at the aforesaid altar. But as regards the reason of Onuphrius, the contrary is found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 1, c. 12, n. 9: "It would be, not congruous, but most becoming, that at the altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is situated, Masses should not be celebrated, which seems to have been observed anciently." For the people, intent upon adoration, ought not to be distracted by other prayers and actions, though sacred, from Him to whom they are uniquely and principally intent. But there is an urgent necessity of celebrating Mass at an altar of this kind if other altars are lacking in the same church or in neighboring churches, especially where the precept of hearing Mass urges. But in order that sacred communion can be distributed to the people, the sacred Eucharist must be reserved at another altar.

The following things, moreover, are to be noted concerning Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament: The celebrant at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, whenever he is in the middle of the altar, must first kiss it and afterward genuflect; but when he comes from one side of the altar, he first genuflects, and afterward kisses the altar.

In solemn Masses which are celebrated at the altar of exposition, a commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament is always made; in private Masses, whether they are read at the altar of exposition or at another within the same church, the aforesaid commemoration is made at the pleasure of the priest, except on feasts of the 1st and 2nd class, on which it cannot be made. The commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament, on account of the identity of the Mystery, is to be omitted only on the feasts of the Passion, the Cross, the Most Holy Redeemer, the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, and the Most Precious Blood. S. R. C., July 3, 1896, ad 4, n. 3924.

In the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, whether for the Prayer of Forty Hours or for any other cause, the three altar cards are altogether to be removed from the altar of exposition, except during the time of Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 20, 1864, ad 3, n. 3129.

At the reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament the prayer Deus, qui nobis... must be concluded, Qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. S. R. C., Mar. 29, 1851, ad 6, n. 2986.

3. On Requiem Masses - Alexander, a noble man, having died, the principal hall of the house was at once turned into an oratory. Several altars were erected in it; and, many from the people coming together, several Masses were celebrated in the presence of the corpse, so that the soul of the deceased might be aided by stronger suffrages. Alexander and his family enjoyed no privilege of a private oratory; whence the faculty of celebrating Masses thus was given by the bishop. - Licitly?

R. Negatively, speaking in itself. For first, when a certain hall of a house is chosen and is transiently turned into an oratory, so that when that function has been completed it is soon turned back to its former use, there is question not of the erection of a private oratory, but of the erection of a portable altar. And cardinals, bishops, and certain missionaries only have this privilege, which is granted only by the Apostolic See. Moreover, although bishops can grant the faculty of celebrating in private oratories, if great and urgent reasons are present, and only by way of an act; yet in the Case there is question neither of a private oratory, nor are great and urgent reasons present. Finally, private Requiem Masses can indeed also be celebrated in the presence of the corpse, but only in churches and oratories, both public and private, and in chapels belonging to seminaries, colleges, and religious or pious communities of either sex. S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3903. E. M. 639; I. M. 639.

Speaking in itself, namely prescinding from legitimate and approved custom and from a special indult. Very recently the S. R. C., Apr. 3, 1894, n. 3822, established: "that while the body of a deceased diocesan bishop, clothed in sacred vestments, lies publicly and solemnly exposed in the great hall of his own residence, Masses may be celebrated throughout the whole morning in suffrage for his soul, all those things being observed which are prescribed in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 2, c. 38, concerning the exposing of the body of a deceased bishop and the offering of suffrages. Which privilege granted to bishops in their own diocese is to be understood, for the same reason, as extended to vicars apostolic in their vicariates, and also to abbots and the other prelates of no diocese enjoying ordinary jurisdiction over the people when they departed from life, yet in their own territory. Finally, by special grace, the S. R. C. grants that deceased titular bishops also may be able to enjoy the same privilege; provided that their bodies are exposed in a suitable hall, and, if outside the City, have been clothed with pontifical ornaments (yet without the pastoral staff); but if in the City, only in prelatial habit." M. E. vol. 8, p. 2, p. 76.

4. Sempronius the priest, in Requiem Masses, always reads the prayers as they lie in the missal, and always omits the sequence. Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. For from the General Decree of the S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 3920: "In daily Masses of every kind, whether read or with chant, several prayers are to be said, of which the first is to be for the deceased person or deceased persons certainly designated for whom the sacrifice is offered, from those which are inscribed in the missal, the second at pleasure, the last for all the faithful departed. But if Mass is celebrated for the dead in general, the prayers are to be said which stand in the missal for daily Masses, and in the same order in which they are there inscribed. But if in the same daily Masses it pleases the celebrant to add several prayers, as the rubrics grant the power, this can be done only in read Masses, with an odd number preserved along with the others prescribed, and with the prayer for all the faithful departed assigned to the last place." But the sequence from the same Decree is to be said in any sung Masses, as also in read Masses, on the Commemoration of all the faithful departed and on the day and for the day of death or burial. In the rest it can be recited or omitted at the pleasure of the celebrant. I. M. 657. Cf. also General Decree of the S. R. C., Commemorationis omnium Fidelium Defunctorum, July 9, 1895, n. 3864.

5. Onuphrius the parish priest, since the rite was semidouble, after celebrating a Requiem Mass for the soul of his parishioner Urban, deceased on the preceding day, deferred the absolution at the tomb to another day, on which the corpse was to be brought into the church. - Does he act rightly?

R. Affirmatively. For the absolution is to be made after the Requiem Mass, or without Mass when the corpse is brought to the church, and in its presence. S. C. de P. F., Mar. 21, 1851, Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 913. This is also clear from the Roman Ritual, title de Exequiis. For at the end it is said: "Mass, if the hour is suitable, in the rite for the dead as on the day of death, with the body present, is not to be omitted, unless a great solemnity of the day stands in the way, or some necessity advises otherwise."

6. On the invalid consecration of wine. - Paschal, a priest, at the taking of the Chalice, notices that water had been placed instead of wine. Having the aforesaid water already in his mouth, he remains very uncertain for some space of time whether he ought to throw it from his mouth back into the Chalice, so that, fasting, after the consecration has been made again, he may communicate, or whether rather he ought to swallow it. At last he does this latter thing, yet not without some fear.

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

R. Paschal acted rightly. For, this Case occurring, since in practice it is morally most difficult not to swallow the water, one can do this without scruple. Moreover, it seems to be a certain irreverence and indecency to throw the aforesaid drink from the mouth back into the Chalice. It can also be confirmed from the rubric of the missal, which, in the Case in which a particle of the consecrated host adheres to the Chalice while the Blood is being consumed, prescribes that the same either be brought with the finger to the lip of the Chalice, or be consumed after wine has been put into the Chalice, de Defect. tit. 10, n. 8; which latter mode is more approved, as Merati observes in the Notes to Gavantus. Cas. Bonon. Dioeces., year 1791, month of March, Case 3; Gavantus, tom. 1, part 3, tit. 4, n. 5; Merati, ib., tit. 10, n. 8; G. 361; Elbel 148.

But from the rubric of the missal de Defect. tit. 4 it is prescribed that also a new host, in the Case, be consecrated, if, scandal being excluded, it can be done; otherwise, that only wine be consecrated. Yet all things are not to be repeated again; but it will be enough to repeat only those things which pertain to the consecration itself, beginning for the former consecration from the words, Qui pridie quam pateretur; and for the other from the words, Simili modo. But before the first consecration the offering of the Host and Chalice must be made mentally. Rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 2, n. 5; tit. 4, n. 4, 5; Cas. Bonon. Dioec., year 1792, month of Apr., Case 3; G. 360, 361; I. M. 329 ff.

But if a consecrated particle of the host has remained in the chalice with part of the water, then before the new consecration the water is to be poured into a clean vessel, the particle of the consecrated host being retained in the chalice, or extracted from it and soon reverently consumed; but the water poured into that vessel is to be consumed after the ablution, or put into the sacrarium. But if only a little water has remained in the chalice, whether with or without a particle of the consecrated host, wine can be poured upon this, which is then consecrated. Elbel 148.

7. On the omitted consecration of the host - Marinus the priest, after the consecration of the chalice, notices that through distraction he omitted the consecration of the Host. Hence he remains uncertain, not knowing what he should do; for he fears to consecrate the Host after the wine. For thus the nature of the sacrifice seems to him no longer to be verified.

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

R. There is no doubt that what Marinus must do in the Case is to consecrate the host. This is clearly had in the rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 4, 5, 6, where there is discussion of defect of the bread, and a fourfold case is distinguished: that someone notices the defect of the matter of bread before its consecration; after its consecration; after its consumption; after the consumption of the chalice. In the first Case, after a host has been supplied and a mental offering made, the priest is to continue from the place where he left off, and then the host is to be consecrated. In the second and third Case, after other matter likewise has been placed and a mental offering made, that matter also is to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.; and the other corrupt or non-wheaten host, if he has not consumed it, he is to consume after the consumption of the Body and Blood; or he is to hand it over to others to be consumed, or preserve it reverently somewhere. In the fourth Case new bread and wine with water must again be supplied, and, after a mental offering has first been made, both matters are to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie, and at once both are to be consumed, and the Mass continued. Hence it is clear that even after the consecration of the chalice and before its consumption, the host is to be consecrated, notwithstanding that inversion of order, that the wine was consecrated first, and afterward the host is consecrated. This is also clear from the same rubric, ib., in the following number, namely 7, where it is said: "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, or by wind, or by miracle, or being taken by some animal, cannot be found, then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place, Qui pridie quam pateretur, its offering having first been made, as above." And hence it is clear that the order of consecrating first the bread and then the wine does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice. Hence also from the defect of a change of order in consecrating, a sufficient foundation cannot be taken for doubting about the validity of the sacrifice. Suarez, d. 75, s. 6; d. 86, s. 1; Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1792, month of Febr., Case 3.

8. On the consecration of small hosts - Euphrasius always has to consecrate these small hosts; indeed he places them on the corporal, but by no means sees to it that they also are upon the altar stone. For he says that it suffices that the larger host and the chalice are upon the altar stone.

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

R. Euphrasius does not act rightly. For first, in rubric tit. 20 it is said: "The altar on which the most holy sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated must be of stone and consecrated by a bishop, or at least a stone altar-slab similarly consecrated by a bishop inserted in it, which is so large that it can contain the host and the greater part of the chalice." Therefore, as the larger host must be upon the altar stone, so also upon the same must be placed the other small hosts, which constitute part of one and the same sacrifice which is celebrated. Yet, as it suffices, if the altar stone is small, that the greater part of the chalice be upon it, so also it suffices that the greater part of the aforesaid hosts, which are taken by way of one matter, be upon the same altar stone, if it is so small that it cannot contain them all. - Moreover, in rubr. tit. 2 it is said: "If the priest is going to consecrate several hosts for communion to be given, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten, he places them on the corporal before the chalice, or puts them in some consecrated chalice or clean blessed vessel behind the chalice, and covers them with another paten or pall." Hence it is sufficiently understood that small hosts also are to be placed upon the altar stone, since they are to be placed near the chalice, and if on the altar stone there is space for the chalice and for the larger host, there consequently will also be space for the small hosts, unless that stone is very small, and the hosts are very many. Hence Merati in l. c. says: "When several particles are to be consecrated for the communion of the lay faithful and of others not celebrating, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten (for when the particles are few, such as five or six, they must be placed upon the paten and beneath the host, so as to offer them together with the host at the same time, and after the offering they are placed upon the corporal separated from the host; yet in such a way that they remain upon the altar stone, and at the left side of the celebrant, according to common usage; but before the chalice according to the higher rubric), the priest, while he prepares the chalice at the beginning of Mass, places them on the corporal; so that, as we have just said, they remain upon the altar stone and before the chalice, according to the higher rubric, and as Quarti, Bissus, Hippolytus a Porto also teach, or according to the more common usage on the side of the Gospel or at the left of the celebrant, as the Caeremoniale missae privatae teaches, cap. 11, de consecrat. particular. et commun. fidelium § 1, and also Gervasi above § Se poi."

And here, as to communion to be distributed to the people outside Mass, the following things are to be noted:

In the administration of most holy communion outside Mass, after the Most Holy Sacrament has been put back in the tabernacle, the priest must bless the people before he folds the corporal, or does something similar. This is inferred from the word then placed in the rubric.

In the blessing after communion outside Mass the priest does not kiss the altar. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833, ad 6, n. 2704.

During the whole Paschal season after the administration of the most holy Eucharist outside Mass, to the antiphon O sacrum... and the versicle Panem de coelo..., Alleluia is added, and the Prayer is said: Pour into us, O Lord, the Spirit of thy charity: that those whom thou hast satisfied with the paschal Sacraments, thou mayest make by thy piety to be of one accord. Through Christ our Lord. - Amen. Roman Ritual.

9. On communion to be given from the larger host - "A chaplain celebrating at an altar in which the Eucharist is not reserved, so that he might satisfy the devotion of a pious woman seeking communion in the Mass, gives to her a part of the consecrated (larger) host.

It is asked: Licitly?

R. Suarez, 3 p., d. 85, s. 2, with Paludanus, and Gavantus, in rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, affirmed that this was licit, relying on the old custom of the Church, which seemed to have been abrogated by no law; and not undeservedly did they write thus in their own age. But now there exists a Decree of the S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679, approved by Innocent XI, by which, the old custom having now been changed, it is prescribed that none are to be handed over except the customary forms, or particles, of the Eucharist. From this Cavalerius, tom. 4, c. 4, Decret. 2, n. 9, infers that it is not licit to give a part of the host to a layman, one exception being danger of death. And he confirms it from rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, where it is established: If the priest celebrating becomes ill, or falls into syncope after the consecration, yet so that he can communicate, and there is not another consecrated host, the priest who supplies the Mass divides the host and gives one part to the sick man. Now, if only in defect of another host is part of the host of the sacrifice to be given in the Case to a priest already sacrificing, how much more will it be necessary to beware lest it be furnished to a layman outside the case of extreme necessity? Therefore it will not be licit for the chaplain, merely to satisfy the devotion of the woman, to assign to her part of the host." Casus Conscient. Bonon. Dioec., year 1778, month of May, Case III.

But that rigid resolution is not proved by the Documents adduced. For from that first cited Decree nothing else is held except this: that ordinarily and from the general rule it is not licit to give anything except the customary Eucharistic forms or particles. Likewise from the cited Rubric nothing else is held except what must be done if there is, or is not, another consecrated host. By no means, however, does it follow from this that only in a case of extreme necessity can a part of the larger host be given. For fittingly, if another consecrated host is present, this is given to the former sick priest, and the other larger host, lest it be divided, is consumed whole by the other priest, since he then supplies and completes the Mass; rubr. l. c. And thus it is already the common opinion that this can licitly be done even outside the case of extreme necessity, when another just and proportionate necessity exists. For here there is not question of any most grave and graver, or even of any grave precept. And thus La-Croix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 498: "When is it licit for a priest to give to a layman part of his larger host? R. When there is a reasonable cause. Graff., Zanard., Zambran. indeed think that it is not licit outside necessity; but S. Anton., Sylv., Sa, Angel., Io. Sanch., Bon., Barb., Marchant., Possev., Dian., Dic., Aversa, Tamb., Gob., Verj. better contradict this, because Christ Himself did this, nor is it now prohibited, nor is there also any irreverence or indecency in this; but the contrary custom or non-use does not oblige under sin, but arises from this, that ordinarily smaller hosts are also had, which if they do not suffice for the number of those communicating can also be divided into several particles, of which individual particles are given to individual persons. The cited authors say that reasonable causes are present if someone has great devotion toward communicating and it is not convenient for him to wait; if a grave or noble person wishes then to communicate, so that afterward he may in good time dispatch himself to business; if servants cannot easily wait without loss to their duties; if the priest would have to wait a long time that a small host might be brought before the offering, etc." And St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 217: "But if," he says, "only one remained (without communion), Gobat advises rather that there be given to him part of the large host, which can now licitly be done, as Croix says with S. Anton., etc. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time for communion." And at n. 245 the same holy Doctor says: "If this is done without cause it is not licit, but it does not exceed venial, as Tournely rightly says with Poss. But it suffices to excuse it if the one to be communicated is sick, a noble man, a servant, or another who could not wait without inconvenience, even if he communicates only from devotion, as the same Tournely and Conc., Salm. with Dic., Diana, Gran. and Elbel with S. Anton., Sylvest. and Bon. commonly say." And Scavini, l. 3, n. 133, ed. Milan 1874: "To no one," he says, "are several particles to be handed, nor larger ones, but the customary ones. S. R. C., Feb. 12, 1679, General Decree approved by Innocent XI. When the particles do not suffice, the custom of dividing consecrated particles is to be preserved, if necessity is present. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833. Benedict XIV advises, if there is one to be communicated and particles are lacking, to give him part of the large host, if namely the one to be communicated would have to wait a long time."

Therefore to the proposed Case it must be said that the chaplain indeed acted illicitly if he did that so as to satisfy the importunate devotion of a woman who desired to receive communion from the great host of the priest himself. But the chaplain by no means acted illicitly if he did that lest the woman, e.g., a mother of a family, be deprived of communion, or lest she wait a long time with grave inconvenience to herself and her family. - I. M. 536.

10. Mass without a Minister - On a Sunday, about to celebrate Mass in a certain public oratory, into which many had come together to hear it, the chaplain finds no one who knows how to serve Mass, nor is it easy then to find someone suitable for this; for the oratory is distant from the parish, and it is near midday.

It is asked: What must the Chaplain do?

R. In a Case of this kind the chaplain must employ some man who may offer him wine and water in the ministry of the Mass. But as regards the prayers which must be recited either alternately by the priest and the minister, or by this latter alone, the celebrant alone will be able to recite them by himself, and to respond to himself. For in a case of necessity, such as the proposed Case is, the doctors commonly agree that this is licit. And certainly, if the rubric of the missal in the rite to be observed in the celebration of Mass, tit. 4, concerning the Kyrie eleison, expressly warns at n. 2 at the end: If the minister, or those who are present, do not respond to the celebrant, he alone says it nine times; and tit. 7, n. 7 likewise warns that, if by the minister or by the bystanders at the Orate fratres there is no response, May the Lord receive the sacrifice from thy hands, the priest himself by himself says: May the Lord receive the sacrifice from my hands, etc., up to the end; why could not the celebrant also say by himself the remaining things to be said in the Mass with the minister, or by this latter only, if the minister does not know how to respond? For indeed it is forbidden to celebrate Mass entirely without a minister, as is had in the rubric de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1, where it is said: If there is not present a cleric, or another serving in the Mass, or there is present one who ought not to serve, as a woman: but it is not forbidden in a case of necessity to employ a minister who does not know how to respond, provided however that he can furnish wine and water in the ministry itself, especially for washing the fingers, both before the consecration and after the consummation. Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1766, month of Aug., Case 3; I. M. 653.

11. On prayers before and after Mass - A certain priest, while vested he goes to the altar to offer the sacred rite, is accustomed on the way to recite in a low voice the psalm Miserere, which, if he cannot complete it before he reaches the altar, he continues to the end while he unfolds the corporal and opens and arranges the missal; and sometimes, if the way from the sacristy to the altar was very short, he remains a little while in the middle of the altar, so that he may finish that psalm before he descends to begin Mass.

302. Preliminary note. Here we do not treat of the diverse rites instituted or permitted by the Church, such as the Roman, Oriental, and Ambrosian rites, the rite of the Preachers, the Carthusians, and so forth. The general rule is: "Let it not be lawful for priests to perform sacred rites according to a mixed rite; therefore let each confect and minister the sacrament of the Body of the Lord according to the rite of his own Church."⁵¹¹

Wherefore, without any doubt, a priest of the Order of Preachers would sin, for example, if without previous legitimate permission and outside a most urgent necessity he celebrated Mass according to the Roman rite; and conversely, a priest bound to the Roman rite who wished to say Mass according to the rite of the Friars Preachers.

The Council of Trent⁵¹² established the following concerning ceremonies accepted in general: "Since the nature of men is such that it cannot easily be raised to meditation upon divine things without exterior aids, holy Mother Church has therefore instituted certain rites, namely, that some things be pronounced in Mass in a low voice and others in a louder voice; she has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, from apostolic discipline and tradition, both that the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be commended and that the minds of the faithful, through these visible signs of religion and piety, might be aroused to the contemplation of the most sublime things which lie hidden in this sacrifice."

⁵¹¹ Constitution of Pius X, Tradita ab antiquis, September 14, 1912 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis IV, 615).

⁵¹² Session 22, c. 5, On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Denz., n. 943).

303. Principle. All the rubrics of the Missal oblige in conscience in some manner.

Proof 1. St. Pius V strictly commands in the Constitution which is read at the beginning of the Missal that Mass be celebrated according to the rite, manner, and norm as noted in the rubrics of the Missal. Now such a general ecclesiastical law obliges in conscience.

Proof 2. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, in a decree which likewise is found in the Roman Missal, "commands that the rubrics of the Roman Missal be observed in all things and in every respect," notwithstanding any pretext and contrary custom, which it declares to be an abuse. Moreover, that such a precept is purely directive or penal is an altogether gratuitous assertion.

Wherefore the distinction employed by several authors between preceptive and directive rubrics is of little utility, both because no one up to this time has been able to designate which rubrics are preceptive and which are merely directive,⁵¹³ and because this distinction cannot be solidly proved. Therefore it must be said: Whenever something is determinately established in the rubrics, it obliges in conscience; but when it is left to the discretion of the priest or bishop, or is proposed according to the convenience of the priest, certainly each one can act as is consonant with his reason.

⁵¹³ Some authors think that all the rubrics to be observed within Mass are preceptive, but those to be observed before or after Mass are merely directive. This opinion does not seem sufficiently founded, since, for example, the prayers which are to be said while putting on the sacred vestments are most commonly held to be preceptive.

304. Gravity of the obligation. The rubrics of the Missal are positive ecclesiastical laws; and accordingly, for judging the gravity of their obligation, the general rules concerning the obligation of ecclesiastical laws are to be employed; namely, it is necessary to attend to: a) the gravity of the matter; b) the common judgment of the doctors. From the application of these rules it is useful to adduce the following practical solutions:

1. A responding minister, and indeed a male, is required under grave obligation to serve at Mass. From this law, however, there excuse: a) a pontifical dispensation, which sometimes is customarily granted to missionaries and other priests; and b) a case of necessity, for example, that on a feast day the people may be able to assist at Mass, that Viaticum may be confected, or even probably if otherwise the priest would be wholly unable to say Mass on that day. It is lawful to celebrate from a lesser necessity with a minister who does not know how to make the responses. Therefore a priest ought not make scruples for himself if the minister pronounces the words badly; it is fitting, however, that the priest himself then supply the words omitted. To permit a woman to take the place of the Mass server in all things, that is, to stand at the altar, present the cruets, and so forth, is considered a grave transgression of the ecclesiastical precept. When a male minister is lacking, however, it is lawful to celebrate Mass if a woman, especially a nun, indeed makes the responses but does not approach the altar. In public churches, however, a woman cannot serve at Mass in this manner unless necessity⁵¹⁴ or at least a just cause is present.

How great this necessity must be is not established. After the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on August 14, 1893, replied that such necessity was not present in a case in which the priest otherwise would have to omit a Mass which was in no way necessary for fulfilling the precept of hearing Mass, it afterward, on January 13, 1894, suspended the execution of this rescript until it had weighed new arguments brought forward. To this day a decision has not yet been given. Indeed, the Code, c. 813, § 2, no longer requires necessity, but a just cause. Wherefore it seems lawful to employ a woman if otherwise the priest could not say Mass even for the sake of devotion.

2. Every notable change in the Canon of the Mass is a mortal sin. Thus all teach. St. Alphonsus⁵¹⁵ thinks it already grave to omit ten words in the Canon.

3. Outside the Canon, to omit entire parts which must be said in every Mass is likewise considered a grave sin, for example, the omission of the Confession and of all the other prayers to be said before the steps; the omission of the Epistle with the Tract or Gradual; the omission of the Gospel.

4. To omit one or another of those parts which do not occur in every Mass does not seem grave, for example, to omit the Gloria, Creed, a commemoration, and so forth.

Lehmkuhl⁵¹⁶ teaches: "It is not altogether established that it is a grave sin in Holy Week to omit the Passion, reciting only the final part which is taken as the Gospel; but if someone is detained by a fortuitous impediment from being able to say so long a Mass, yet is impelled by devotion or another cause to celebrate, it is better to take another Mass, such as a votive Mass of the Passion, than to omit from the Mass of those days the history of the Passion. For to take that votive Mass, although of itself it is a sin against the rubrics, is certainly only venial, and for a moderately grave cause it will be lawful to do this without any fault." The second part of this opinion is displeasing, because it is necessary: 1. to change the color of the vestments; 2. to take a Mass contrary to the express prohibition of the Church. Since, however, according to the common opinion, it is not grave to omit those things which are not to be said in every Mass, and the Passion is not to be said in every Mass, when a true cause exists it seems that the Passion should be omitted rather than that a votive Mass of the Passion be said.⁵¹⁷ For the rest, bishops today are customarily empowered to grant that a priest celebrating twice omit the Passion in one Mass.

5. It is not lawful from importunate devotion to add anything in the Mass, and especially Collects or prayers cannot be added at will.⁵¹⁸

6. If someone through error has omitted something which belongs to the necessity and integrity of the Mass, for example, the Offertory or the consecration, he must supply it. But other things which do not belong to the necessity and integrity of the Mass, such as the Gloria, Collects, Creed, and so forth, if the priest has already advanced somewhat, he ought not supply, but continue the Mass.⁵¹⁹

7. It is not lawful to break off Mass before the consecration unless scandal is absent and at the same time a grave cause is present, for example, if the priest remembers that he is not fasting or if he suddenly becomes ill.⁵²⁰ It is never lawful to break off Mass after the consecration and before Communion unless danger of death or profanation of the Eucharist is imminent. A Mass broken off after the consecration must be completed altogether by the priest himself or by another, even one who is not fasting, because otherwise an enormous sacrilege would be committed.⁵²¹ If, however, more than one hour has intervened, the moral union between the parts of the Mass already seems to have been destroyed, and therefore the strict obligation of completing the Mass probably ceases. It is nevertheless lawful to complete a Mass that has been broken off even after several hours.⁵²²

It is lawful to interrupt Mass for a short time before the Offertory or after the Communion of the priest, provided that a just cause is present. Thus, for example, it is lawful to interrupt Mass after the Gospel in order to preach, to proclaim banns, and so forth; it is lawful after Communion to give a brief exhortation to children receiving Communion, or to receive or emit religious vows. But once the Canon has begun until the Communion of the priest, it is not lawful to interrupt Mass except for a most grave cause, for example, to administer Viaticum to a dying person, because of an illness of the priest which will pass shortly, and so forth.

⁵¹⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 18, 1898 (Decr. auth., n. 4015 ad 6); Code of Canon Law, c. 813.

⁵¹⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 403.

⁵¹⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 332.

⁵¹⁷ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. IV, n. 1105.

⁵¹⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 17, 1894 (Decr. auth., n. 3832 ad 8).

⁵¹⁹ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 6 ad 5.

⁵²⁰ Cf. ibid., a. 6 ad 2.

⁵²¹ Ibid.

⁵²² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 355.

853. The time and place of celebration are determined in the code of law:

A. "Matrimony can be contracted at any time of the year. Only the solemn blessing of nuptials is forbidden from the first Sunday of Advent up to the day of the Nativity of the Lord inclusively, and from Ash Wednesday up to Easter Sunday inclusively. Yet local Ordinaries can, with liturgical laws preserved, permit it even in the aforesaid times from a just cause, the spouses having been warned that they abstain from excessive pomp" (can. 1108).

Therefore: 1) There no longer exists a prohibiting impediment, namely the forbidden time, which in certain places in the closed time prohibited marriages; nevertheless, by particular law they can be prohibited at certain hours, for example, evening or night hours.

2. The solemn blessing can be conceded by the Ordinary, with liturgical laws preserved concerning the Mass for the spouses sometimes not to be said.

3. Then, in the forbidden time, there must be abstention from pomp, such as the sound of bells, public festivity, splendid adornment of the church, solemn escorting of the bride with dances and music. Moderate signs of joy are not forbidden.

B. "Matrimony between Catholics is to be celebrated in the parochial church; but in another church or oratory, whether public or semi-public, it can be celebrated only with the license of the local Ordinary or pastor" (can. 1109, § 1).

Nevertheless: 1° "Local Ordinaries can permit matrimony to be celebrated in private houses only in some extraordinary case and with a just and reasonable cause always acceding; but in churches or oratories either of a seminary or of religious women, let Ordinaries not permit this unless necessity is urgent and suitable cautions have been applied" (can. 1109, § 2). An extraordinary case can be inability or difficulty of going to church, or necessity of secretly convalidating a matrimony; urgent necessity, the destruction of the parochial church.

2° "But marriages between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic party are to be celebrated outside church; but if the Ordinary prudently judges that this cannot be observed without graver evils arising, it is committed to his prudent judgment to dispense in this matter, yet the prescription of can. 1102, § 2 remaining firm," namely, concerning Mass not to be permitted (can. 1109, § 3).

I say 1°. A twofold error about Marriage is distinguished, namely: 1°. substantial error, which is concerned with the person; 2°. accidental error, which affects the qualities of the person. But condition is understood as servile condition unknown by the other free party, and consequently the impediment which is called condition is nothing other than an error by which the co-party is thought free when she is a slave.

When error is in the apprehension of a thing not necessary for the essence of the contract, but in a certain accident, it brings it about that the contract is voluntary as regards its essence and consequently such simply, but involuntary in a qualified sense and as regards that accident in which the error is concerned. And this error does not exclude consent, nor is anything had in law vitiating such consent. For in reality, in this error, he wills to marry this woman, to be married to this one; and there is the consent of two into the same thing and a contract substantially whole, nor invalid by law. S. C. C., Wallachien., 2 June 1860.

§ 1. Error concerning the person renders marriage invalid.

§ 2. Error concerning a quality of the person, even if it gives cause to the contract, invalidates marriage only:

1°. If error of quality redounds into error of person;

2°. If a free person contracts marriage with a person whom he thinks free, when on the contrary she is a slave, by slavery properly so called (Can. 1083).

Error of person renders marriage invalid. Error is also either of fortune, or condition, or quality.

Error of person is when this man is thought to be Virgilius but he is Plato; error of fortune when this man is thought to be rich who is poor; error of condition when he is thought to be free who is a slave; error of quality when he is thought to be good and is evil. Cause XXIV, q. 1.

Titius wishes to enter marriage with Anna, and Anna with Titius; therefore each, Titius and Anna, wish mutually to hand over and accept the perpetual and exclusive right over the body in order to determinate acts. Titius wishes to hand over the right over his body to Anna, and Anna wishes to accept that right; Anna wishes to hand over the right over her body to Titius, and Titius wishes to accept that right. In the celebration Martha has been substituted for Anna, and Titius, thinking Martha to be Anna, hands over the right over his body not to Martha, but truly to Anna. But Martha cannot accept from Titius a right which Titius does not hand over to her. This error of person on the part of Titius brings it about that the consent furnished to Martha is null in relation to Martha. In other words, the right which Titius wished to hand over over his body, he wished to hand over to Anna; this was the object of the contract, just as the right which he wished to accept was the right over the body of Anna. Error of person removed this object; in the celebration itself he wished to accept as wife not Martha but Anna, and to hand himself over as husband to a woman, not to Martha, with whom he externally expressed the words, but to Anna. Therefore his error made it such that externally he said that he consented to the woman Martha, to whom he consented in no way. This error removed matrimonial consent. For he does not consent to this Martha, but to Anna, whom he thought Martha to be. Consent to Anna remained; consent to Martha was null; therefore there is no marriage with Martha.

If, however, error of quality redounds into error of person, the contract is invalid: that is, if someone judges that he is contracting with another person, not the one whom he accepts externally, and therefore neither does he consent to contract with this one. When therefore does error of quality redound into error of person? When the quality in which there is error designates an individual person, then error of quality falls back into error of person; as if someone wished to marry the firstborn daughter of the king of Spain. For since the apprehension of the mind draws the consent of the will, the will tends toward that which apprehension proposes to it. Wherefore, since the individual person apprehended, by means of that quality of primogeniture by which she is indicated, is proposed to the will, the consent directly and formally tends toward that person, and hence error concerning that quality is error concerning the person. S. C. C., Wallachien., 2 June 1860.

As regards the second paragraph, n. 2: If a free person has contracted with a slave properly so called, judging her to be free, the marriage is null. The conditions are that the free party be ignorant of the servile condition of the other and contract with that ignorance, and that the slavery be strictly so called.

A threefold error renders marriage null: error of person; error of quality redounding into error of person; error of servile condition of one party.

I say 2°. Simple error concerning the unity or indissolubility of marriage, or its sacramental dignity, even if it gives cause to the contract, does not vitiate matrimonial consent (Can. 1084).

For such error does not take away true and sufficient consent, as has been answered many times by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

A valid marriage can be contracted with a merely concomitant error concerning its indissolubility, because then the general will of contracting according to the institution of Christ prevails, and that general will as it were absorbs the private error. Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 April 1843. - The depraved opinion of the contracting parties, even though confirmed by the laws or customs of the fatherland, namely that the bond of marriage can be dissolved, in no way of itself harms the validity of marriage, unless this opinion is brought into a pact as a condition in the act of entering marriage; for then the marriage becomes null and invalid, as always happens when a condition repugnant to the substance itself has been attached to marriage. Holy Office, 20 June 1866, n. 25. - Marriages entered with only the error of the contracting parties that the bond of consummated marriage can be dissolved in the case of adultery or for other causes are valid. But if they have been entered under this express condition, they must be held as invalid. 11 March 1868, to 2. Error adhering to the mind, which nevertheless has not been brought into a pact or condition, does not harm the validity of marriage. Holy Office, 18 Dec. 1872. Concerning heretics imbued with false doctrine, Benedict XIV, de syn. dioec., 1. 13, c. 22, says thus: It must be believed that they (heretics) wished by a general will to contract a valid marriage according to the law of Christ, and therefore one not to be dissolved even for cause of adultery. For private error can neither be put before nor bring prejudice to the general will of which we have spoken, on which the validity and perpetuity of the contracted marriage depend.

I say 3°. Knowledge or opinion of the nullity of marriage does not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent (Can. 1085). For it does not exclude the general intention of entering marriage according to the law of Christ, and indeed here and now. For they wish to furnish consent truly matrimonial, and thus insofar as they can, as in the example of those who thought that they could not enter before a Turkish judge, although they wished to enter nuptials. Thus such marriages are to be held as valid, as was answered by the Sacred Congregation de Prop. Fide, 1 Oct. 1785. Again the same is established from the sanation of marriage so called civil, which sanation has been conceded not only once. But it could not have been conceded unless matrimonial consent could exist together with such a celebration.

I say 1°. § 1. A marriage entered on account of force or grave fear inflicted from outside and unjustly, from which, in order that someone may free himself, he is compelled to choose marriage, is also invalid (Can. 1087).

This is certainly established from many places of law. Marriage must enjoy full security.

I say 2°. § 2. No other fear, even if it gives cause to the contract, carries with it the nullity of marriage (Can. 1087).

The reason is: 1°. because light fear is not judged to influence consent gravely and efficaciously; 2°. because from positive law only grave fear makes Marriage invalid; 3°. because otherwise innumerable Marriages would become invalid with the greatest detriment to society.

Question 1. Does any grave fear whatsoever dirimently invalidate Marriage?

Resp. Negatively, but the following conditions are required, namely, that it be inflicted 1°. by an external and free cause; 2°. unjustly; 3°. that from it, in order to free himself, someone be compelled to choose marriage.

Question 2. By what law does grave fear dirimently invalidate Marriage?

Resp. Certainly by ecclesiastical law; but whether also by the law of nature is disputed among theologians, and S. Alphonsus, n. 1054, relates reasons on either side. Besides, no practical utility can be derived from the solution of this controversy. For either the discussion is of Marriage to be contracted or of one contracted. If the first, the Church will never dispense unless the cause of fear is first removed; if the other, that Marriage will never be declared invalid unless it has first been proved, in the external forum, that all the conditions which the Church requires for grave fear were verified. - Cf. Ballerini, note (c), p. 806.

A clandestine marriage is called that which is contracted without the solemnity required by the Church.

Question 1. What are the dioceses and places, among us, where the Decree Tametsi was in force de facto, whatever finally may have been the origin and mode of its promulgation?

Resp. This question, which nevertheless regards some fact and not law, was previously wrapped in great obscurity, and diverse responses and opinions for thinking were being circulated. But now, by the work of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, it has a clear solution, for the Fathers of this Council, "after the matter had been studiously investigated, came to this opinion," from which it is certainly not licit to recede: "The Decree Tametsi is not in force in the following ecclesiastical Provinces, namely: 1. Baltimore; 2. Philadelphia; 3. New York; 4. Boston; 5. Oregon City; 6. Milwaukee; 7. Cincinnati, except the diocese of Vincennes; 8. St. Louis, except the city of St. Louis itself and certain other places of the same Archdiocese soon to be named; 9. Chicago, except certain places of the diocese of Alton to be cited presently."

"But in the other places of the same United States the decree Tametsi is judged to be in force, namely: 1°. in the whole province of New Orleans; 2°. in the province of San Francisco with the territory of Utah, except that part of the same territory which lies to the east of the Colorado River; 3°. in the province of Santa Fe, except the northern part of the territory of Colorado; 4°. in the diocese of Vincennes; 5°. in the city of St. Louis, and also in the places called St. Genevieve, St. Ferdinand, and St. Charles, of the Archdiocese of St. Louis; 6°. in the places called Kaskaskia, Cahokia, French Village, and Prairie du Rocher, of the diocese of Alton." - Cf. Responses of the Holy See to the Postulates of the Fathers, in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. cvii. Cf. S. C. d. P. F., 15 April 1901.

Question 2. Were clandestine Marriages of heretics among themselves, or mixed ones, valid where the Tridentine law concerning clandestinity was in force?

Resp. Affirmatively, if however the discussion is of those places to which the Declaration of Benedict XIV was extended, by which in the year 1741 the Supreme Pontiff established that clandestine Marriages entered or to be entered in Holland and in the federated Provinces of Belgium, between heretics or between one heretical party and another Catholic party, are valid. Moreover, this Benedictine Declaration was afterwards extended to several regions of Europe, and as regards us, it had also been extended to several dioceses and places by the work of diverse Bishops; but since, at the time when the last Plenary Council was celebrated, there were still some dioceses to which it certainly had not been extended, and concerning some others there was doubt, the Fathers of the Council requested that, for inducing uniformity, it be extended to all those places, or be declared certainly to have been extended, in which the Decree Tametsi is certainly known to be in force. Moreover, to this petition the response was that this extension was conceded "only" for the dioceses of San Antonio and Galveston and for the Apostolic Vicariate of Brownsville, in which the matter was doubtful. Whence it follows that the Benedictine Declaration had not been in force in the Province of Santa Fe, to which it certainly had not been extended before the aforesaid petition was made. - Cf. Responses of the Holy See, etc., in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, pp. cviii and cix. - Feije, de impedimentis Matrim., nn. 306 and following. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 811, and note (a), p. 820. - Kenrick, n. 186. - Nilles, Part 1, p. 224.

Question 3. Who were those who came under the name of heretics, when it was a question of places where the Benedictine Declaration was in force?

Resp. The solution is clear from the following rescript of the Holy Office, 6 Apr. 1859, which could and had to be applied also to other regions besides Holland. - When the doubt had been proposed: "Whether, for the understanding of the celebrated Declaration of Benedict XIV for Holland, the following five classes can be comprehended under the name of heretic: 1°. those who, baptized Catholic, from childhood not yet seven years old are educated in heresy and profess heresy; 2°. those who are educated not so much in heresy as by heretics, namely with no or scarcely any instruction in heretical doctrine received, and worship not frequented, although sometimes participated in; 3°. those who, while still children, falling into the hands of heretics, are joined to a heretical sect; 4°. apostates passing over from the Catholic Church to a heretical sect; 5°. those who, born and baptized by heretics, have grown up without having emitted any solemn profession of heresy, and as it were of no religion, etc.? ..." The Sacred Congregation responded: "For the effect of Marriage, those enumerated above are comprehended in the praised Declaration of Benedict XIV." - Cf. Feije, n. 319.

Question 4. What was our special privilege in relation to acquiring quasi-domicile for the effect of contracting valid Marriage?

Resp. "The Eminent General Inquisitors on the day 6 May 1886, the matter maturely considered, issued the following decree: 'At the petition of the Council of Baltimore, supplication is to be made to His Holiness that he deign to decree, in the Confederate States of America, that those transferring themselves from a place where the chapter Tametsi is in force to another place, provided they have stayed there continuously for the space of at least one whole month and have proved the liberty of their state, as is of law, are to be judged to have quasi-domicile there in order to Marriage, without inquiry having to be made concerning the intention of remaining there for the greater part of a year.' - But in the audience of the day 12 May 1886, at the report of R. P. D. Joseph D'Annibale, assessor of the Holy Office, the Most Holy Lord Leo XIII deigned by his authority to hold ratified and to confirm the aforesaid Decree of the Eminent Fathers, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding." - Cf. Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. cix. Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques, February 1881, p. 187. - O'Kane, nn. 1021 and following. - Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Nov. and Dec. 1883; and Feb. 1884. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 824, and (b), p. 811. - Nilles, part 1, p. 266.

Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the pastor, or the local Ordinary, or a priest delegated by either one, and at least two witnesses, yet according to the rules expressed in the canons which follow, and with the exceptions saved concerning which in can. 1098, 1099 (Can. 1094).

§ 1. The pastor and the local Ordinary validly assist at marriage:

1°. Only from the day of acquired canonical possession of the benefice according to the norm of can. 334, § 3, 1444, § 1, or of begun office, unless by sentence they have been excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office, or declared such;

2°. Only within the limits of their territory; in which they validly assist at marriages not only of their own subjects, but also of non-subjects;

3°. Provided that, constrained neither by force nor by grave fear, they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

§ 2. The pastor and the local Ordinary who can validly assist at marriage can also give license to another priest that he validly assist at marriage within the limits of their territory (Can. 1095).

Who are pastors, and those equated with them, is clear from Canon 451:

§ 1. 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.

§ 2. With pastors are equated, with all parochial rights and obligations, and they come in law under the name of pastors:

1°. Quasi-pastors, who rule quasi-parishes, concerning which in can. 216, § 3;

2°. Parochial vicars, if they are endowed with full parochial power.

§ 3. Concerning military chaplains, whether major or minor, one must stand by the peculiar prescriptions of the Holy See (Can. 451).

The distinct parts of a diocese into which the diocese itself is divided, to each of which its own particular church with a determined people is assigned and its own particular and proper pastor is set over it for the care of souls, are parishes; parts of an apostolic vicariate and prefecture, if a particular rector is assigned, are called quasi-parishes. Cf. Can. 216, § 3.

§ 4. Without a special apostolic indult, parishes cannot be constituted according to the diversity of language or nation of the faithful living in the same city or territory, nor merely familial or personal parishes; but as regards those already constituted, nothing is to be innovated without consulting the Apostolic See (Can. 216).¹

For the validity of marriage there is required the presence of the pastor or local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either one, and of at least two witnesses; two exceptions are given which we shall explain below.

Nevertheless, in relation to the pastor and local Ordinary, this one and that one validly assist only from the day of acquired possession of the benefice or of begun office.

But if by sentence they have been excommunicated, or interdicted, or suspended from office, or declared such, their assistance is invalid.

The pastor and Ordinary can validly assist only in their own territory.

But in their own territory they validly assist at marriages not only of subjects but also of non-subjects.

Moreover, that this assistance be valid, it is further required that they have been constrained neither by force nor by grave fear.

Finally, it is necessary that they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

In these points a great distinction is now introduced between the law in force before the Decree Ne Temere and the present law of the Code.

Formerly the announced pastor validly assisted; but now his competence is annexed to the possessed benefice or the office already begun. Formerly he could validly assist as long as he was pastor, although excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office by public decree through sentence, or declared such; but now he who is bound by such a censure is declared incompetent. Formerly he validly assisted at marriages of his own subjects everywhere on earth; but now he can validly assist only in his own territory. Formerly he validly assisted only at marriages of subjects even in his own territory; but now there he validly assists both subjects and non-subjects. Namely, his competence is territorial, restricted within the limits of his own parish but extended also to marriages of non-subjects. Hence the ancient discipline of the proper pastor is abolished, by which formerly the assistance of that pastor in whose parish at least one of the contracting parties had domicile or quasi-domicile was required for validity; but now the contract must be entered before the pastor of the territory in which the contract is entered, although neither party is his subject. Formerly the pastor validly assisted, although constrained by force or grave fear; hence surprise marriages were valid. But now he assists validly only when free from force and grave fear. Formerly the pastor validly assisted when present under compulsion, yet perceiving words signifying the mutual matrimonial consent of determinate betrothed persons; but now for validity it is required that he ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

Therefore the assistance of the pastor must be physical, formal, free, and active.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1109, n. 52.

As regards Marriages to be Celebrated, these things are established for our army and navy.

I. Priest Chaplains of the Army and Navy of the United States of North America, during war, enjoy the full faculty of assisting at the marriages of all those who pertain to the Army and Navy of the United States, whether in regions which are subject to the dominion of the United States, or elsewhere. But in marriages which are celebrated outside the territory of the United States of North America, the local Diocesan Chancery must be approached, lest they be contracted against the laws of the region, and especially in those cases in which one of the contracting parties is not an American citizen.

II. Those pertaining to the Army or Navy of the United States of North America are also able to celebrate marriage either under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of origin, or of the Bishop of the place in which they are staying temporarily in camps, or of the Bishop of the Diocese through which they are journeying.

III. The faculty conceded to the Military Ordinary in relation to the celebration of marriage is not privative but cumulative, namely, it does not exclude the jurisdiction of those who by other titles are able to furnish this according to the norm of law.

IV. Chaplains of the Army or Navy are not to assist at marriages unless after previous investigation, especially with the pastor of the woman.

V. Petitions for obtaining dispensations are to be sent to the Military Ordinary or to the Military Vicar General.

VI. The document of the contracted marriage, according to the decree Ne Temere, is to be carefully prepared and sent to the Military Ordinary; but a copy of the document is to be kept by the Chaplain until the Military Ordinariate renders him certain concerning receipt of the original.

Question 1. When does the Ordinary or pastor begin to be competent as the authorized witness of marriage?

Resp. From the day of acquired possession of the benefice or of begun office.

§ 3. Residential Bishops take canonical possession of a diocese as soon as, in the diocese itself, either personally or through a proxy, they have shown the apostolic letters to the Chapter of the cathedral church, in the presence of the secretary of the Chapter or the chancellor of the Curia, who is to refer the matter into the acts (Can. 334).

§ 1. Induction into possession of a benefice is to be made according to the mode prescribed by particular law or received by legitimate custom, unless from a just cause the Ordinary has expressly dispensed in writing from that mode or rite; in which case this dispensation takes the place of possession taken (Can. 1444).

Question 2. Can a putative pastor validly assist?

Resp. Affirmatively, if from common error he is judged such.

Question 3. Does any priest of the diocese, exercising the sacred ministry without special delegation of the local Ordinary or pastor, validly assist at marriage by force of a general faculty conceded to him of administering all sacraments which do not require the episcopal order?

Resp. Negatively.

Question 4. Which excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted pastor is not competent?

Resp. A pastor is not competent who by sentence has been excommunicated, suspended from office, or interdicted, or declared such. This disposition of the Code corresponds to other canons by which it is required, for external penal effects, that the penalty have been inflicted or declared by condemnatory sentence, especially when it is a question of privation or restriction of the use of priestly power or of other sacred ministers. Cf. Can. 2261, 2264, 2275, 2284.

Question 5. Whether by a prohibition made by the Ordinary, lest the pastor espouse certain persons, the jurisdiction of that pastor is so taken away that, for contracting marriage contrary to such a prohibition, he is not the legitimate pastor?

Resp. "That the marriage contracted before a pastor to whom it has been interdicted by the Bishop lest he intervene is valid." Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council in the Gienn. case, year 1581. "On which matter," says Benedict XIV, "there seems to be able to be stirred up no difficulty of graver moment. For since there is not that authority in the Bishop that he could induce a diriment impediment which does not exist, or establish as null and invalid some marriage which by the prescription of the canons is not null and invalid, the marriage will indeed be illicit if it is celebrated before him whom the Bishop has forbidden to be present at a celebration of this kind; he also will sin gravely who, with the superior's prohibition despised, furnishes assistance to it; but by no reason will it be able to be said that the marriage itself lies under the defect of nullity." - De Syn. Dioec., 1. 13, c. 23.

Question 6. What things are required that the assistance of the pastor be valid?

Resp. From what has been said it is clear that two things are required: 1°. he must be a voluntary witness, coerced by no force or grave fear; 2°. he must assist actively by asking for and receiving the matrimonial consent of the spouses. That this mode of assistance, formal, voluntary, and active, is necessary for validity is gathered first from the fact that it is prescribed as a condition sine qua non, through the particle provided that, and second from the end of the legislator, who intends to found those statutes by which all marriages made by surprise are rendered null and invalid. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, v. 40, p. 531.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1111, n. 54.

Question 7. "Whether Ordinaries and pastors, not only explicitly but also implicitly invited and asked, provided nevertheless that constrained neither by force nor by grave fear they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties, can validly assist at marriages?"

Resp. "Affirmatively." Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 Mar. 1908. It is no longer required that the pastor assist as one invited and asked. - Cf. Can. 1095, § 1.

Question 8. What is the competence of the Ordinary and pastor in relation to marriage?

Resp. It is territorial. But the territory is diverse: that of the Ordinary is the diocese, vicariate, etc.; but that of the pastor is a parish canonically erected, a quasi-parish, or a district defined and perfectly divided from others, or an entire station in places where the territories are not yet perfectly divided. - Leitner, Die Verlobungs- und Eheschliessungsform, p. 33. Cf. Can. 451, §§ 1, 2.

Question 9. What fear invalidates the assistance of the pastor?

Resp. Grave fear, or fear falling upon a constant man. A constant man is one who in some class is of ordinary fortitude, namely, who above others of the same class is distinguished neither by timidity nor by strength of soul. The fear will be grave when the evil inflicting it is such that no one fearing it loses the name of a constant man. Whenever such fear is inflicted by an extrinsic free cause in order to compel the assistance of the pastor, and for that reason he assists, the marriage is null and invalid. But if the pastor unjustly refuses to assist, and on account of this cause is compelled by grave fear to be present, even then the contract must be called null. For where the law does not distinguish, neither ought we to distinguish; but the law simply excludes assistance furnished from grave fear. This vexation can easily be removed, because any pastor or Ordinary is suitable and competent for the validity of marriage, indeed in a case of necessity even for liceity. Nevertheless the wedlock entered before a pastor who, finally yielding to importunate prayers, assists will be valid.

Question 10. What is established by the new law in relation to witnesses?

Resp. Besides the presence of an authorized witness, at least two witnesses are required; therefore more can be present. As regards them the ancient discipline is in force. It suffices that they enjoy the use of reason. Therefore non-Catholics can also validly be assumed, or those deceived by fraud or coerced by fear; adults or minors; men or women; wholly unwilling and not knowing how to write. Nevertheless heretics are illicitly assumed. S. C. Inq., 19 Aug. 1891.

Their assistance must be such that they can testify concerning the marriage celebrated of this bridegroom and bride. Therefore material presence is not sufficient, but it is necessary that the witnesses know what is being done. Therefore they must see the spouses and perceive and understand the signs expressing consent; but if they do not see the contracting parties themselves, yet hear known voices while they pronounce consent, the assistance is valid.

Nevertheless it is not required that determinate witnesses be invited, or that certain persons be so employed that these and not others are witnesses; but it suffices that those who are present at the celebration can make faith concerning the marriage entered, since it is certainly established to them concerning the furnishing of consent. And hence a marriage entered before the pastor and several persons, all of whom can duly testify concerning the consent given, is valid, although the two invited witnesses were not present.

Question 11. Whether "exempt regular churches, according to the tenor of the decree, can be considered as the territory of the pastor or Ordinary in whose territorial district they are situated, for the effect of assistance at marriage?"

Resp. "Affirmatively." (S. C. de Sacr., 13 Mar. 1910.)¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1151, n. 126.

You Will Resolve. - Marriages are invalid:

1°. When the pastor or Ordinary or one delegated by either is lacking;

2°. When at least two witnesses do not assist;

3°. When it is contracted before the proper pastor of the spouses outside his own territory without the necessary delegation of the Ordinary or pastor of the place in which it is contracted;

4°. When it is contracted before a non-delegated priest, or before a delegated deacon;

5°. When it is contracted before the pastor announced for the place, but not yet possessing the benefice;

6°. When it is contracted before a pastor excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office by sentence;

7°. When it is contracted before a pastor compelled by grave fear to assist;

8°. When it is contracted before an invited pastor, indeed hearing but not asking for consent;

9°. When it is contracted before a pastor present by chance, but not actively assisting.

§ 1. But the pastor or local Ordinary assist licitly at marriage:

1°. When it has been legitimately established to them concerning the free state of the contracting parties according to the norm of law;

2°. When it has further been established concerning the domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay, or, if it is a question of a wanderer, the actual stay, of one or the other contracting party in the place of marriage;

3°. If the conditions concerning which in n. 2 are lacking, when license has been had from the pastor or Ordinary of the domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay of one or the other contracting party, unless either it is a question of wanderers actually journeying, who nowhere have a seat of stay, or a grave necessity intervenes which excuses from license to be sought.

§ 2. In any case let it be held as a rule that marriage be celebrated before the pastor of the bride, unless a just cause excuses; but marriages of Catholics of mixed rite, unless something else has been provided by particular law, are to be celebrated in the rite of the man and before his pastor.

§ 3. A pastor who assists at marriage without the license required by law does not make the stole-fees his own, and he is to remit them to the proper pastor of the contracting parties (Can. 1097).

Before marriage is celebrated it is necessary to observe the dispositions of law concerning free state, concerning banns, and all other things pertaining to it. Thus the Roman Ritual, tit. de sacr. matrim.: "The pastor, admonished concerning some Marriage to be contracted in his Parish, should first know from those to whom it pertains who and of what sort they are who wish to contract Marriage: Whether there is some impediment between them; Whether they wish to contract spontaneously, freely, and according to the honesty of the Sacrament; Whether they are of legitimate age, so that the man has completed at least fourteen¹ years, the woman twelve² years; and that each knows the rudiments of the Faith, since they ought afterward to teach these to their children." "Moreover, let the Pastor beware lest he easily admit to contracting Marriage wanderers and travelers and those who have uncertain seats; nor likewise those who have been married before, as are the wives of soldiers or captives or of others who are journeying, unless, after diligent inquiry has been made concerning all these things, and the matter referred to the Ordinary, license for celebrating Marriage of this kind has been had from him, which is to be conceded gratis." Finally, proclamations are to be made according to the statutes of law. By natural and positive law under grave obligation, the pastor is bound before he joins the spouses to institute an investigation concerning free state, that is, concerning their immunity especially from the impediment of bond and from all other impediments, both diriment and impeding. In no way can the pastor licitly proceed to the celebration unless it is established to him concerning this immunity. In this matter let there be compared the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix, pp. 258 and following, pp. 274 and following, and diocesan statutes. Wernz, v. 4, n. 130 and following. Besson, Nouvelle Revue Theologique, tom. 40, p. 76. - Boudinhon, Le Mariage et Les Fiancailles, n. 71 and following. - McNicholas, The New Marriage Legislation, p. 35: This last little book, most excellently adapted to our conditions, is altogether to be consulted. - Cf. Can. 1067, § 1.

¹ Now, sixteen.

² Now, fourteen.

Question 1. What else must be established to the pastor before he can licitly assist at marriage?

Resp. It must be established to him concerning domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay, or, if it is a question of a wanderer, concerning actual stay in the place of marriage. By the Code quasi-domicile has been reintroduced into matrimonial law in relation to its celebration. - Cf. Can. 92, under n. 80.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1112, n. 55.

Question 2. How is the place of marriage mentioned in n. 2 to be understood?

Resp. The place of marriage is the parish or diocese; parochial and diocesan domicile is given. - Cf. Can. 92 under n. 80.

Question 3. How is monthly stay to be understood?

Resp. Generally a month signifies thirty days. - Cf. Can. 32. But we ought not to interpret the matter too rigorously. Wherefore if someone, after habitation in the place has already been begun, were absent by chance for one or another day, this would not prevent him from being said, at the end of thirty days from entrance into the place, to have stayed there for a month.

Moreover, stay in a place here designates residence; thus it can be that someone works during the day in one parish, but has the seat of residence in another. His pastor for marriage is the rector of this latter, not of the former. Stay in no way requires continuous presence. Cf. Besson, l. c., pp. 78 and following. Gennari, Il Mon. Eccles., Sec. Ser., v. 10, p. 90. - Ojetti, l. c., n. 97. - Vermeersch, De Religiosis, v. 4, p. 176.

Question 4. What is required if neither of the spouses has domicile or monthly stay in the place of marriage?

Resp. The pastor and local Ordinary assist licitly: "when, if the conditions concerning which in n. 2 are lacking, license has been had from the pastor or Ordinary of the domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay of one or the other contracting party, unless it is a question of wanderers actually journeying, who nowhere have a seat of stay, or a grave necessity intervenes which excuses from license to be sought."

Question 5. Is monthly stay in a parish to be computed from the day of conversion, say of Titius, to the Catholic faith, or rather from his entrance into the parish?

Resp. The merely external fact of stay suffices for liceity, abstracting from the fact of the conversion of Titius to the faith. Moreover, the will of the legislator must be sought from the words of the law according to that saying: "The legislator expressed what he willed." But now only monthly stay of one or the other contracting party is required, without any discussion being had concerning their religion. Therefore only the material fact of stay is exacted for liceity, with the other things to be observed by law being observed. But this monthly stay must be morally continuous. S. C. de Sacr., 28 Jan. 1916.

Therefore license is to be sought from the pastor either of domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay of the spouses. - Cf. Vermeersch, l. c., n. 60. - Gennari, l. c., p. 30. - Bucceroni, Supplementum, n. 13.

This license, since it is not delegation nor necessary for validity, seems to suffice if it is presumed or interpretative. Thus Gennari, l. c. - Pezzani, l. c., n. 94. Grave necessity excuses from obtaining or even seeking this license, some urgent cause for the celebration of marriage, which cannot be deferred except with a notable inconvenience altogether, until license is obtained. In this case the pastor also assists licitly. Authors counsel that the reason for license not sought be preserved by some document, for avoiding inconveniences perhaps to arise afterward.

But if the pastor refuses to give license sought from a just cause, recourse can be had to the Ordinary or to the pastor of the other spouse.

Question 6. When does the pastor licitly assist at marriages of wanderers?

Resp. At the marriage of wanderers concerning whom in can. 91, the pastor, except in a case of necessity, should never assist unless, after the matter has been brought to the local Ordinary or to a priest delegated by him, he has obtained license to assist (Can. 1032).

Question 7. Who are wanderers according to the new Code?

Resp. Wanderers are those who nowhere have domicile or quasi-domicile. Thus the new Code, can. 91. And therefore the sense of wanderer is now fixed. The prohibition of assisting without permission of the Ordinary or delegated person, outside a case of necessity, extends itself to all wanderers who are held such according to Can. 91.

This license is to be sought either from the Ordinary or from a priest delegated by him for this. As is clear, in large dioceses it would be a very grave burden for the Ordinary to attend to this by himself. Canon 1032 meets this difficulty, by force of which he can designate priests in various parts of the diocese who may discharge this function. Therefore the pastor must have recourse to the delegate or to the Ordinary, but only after a diligent examination concerning free state has been instituted; and if there are any diocesan laws on this point, they must be observed exactly. Although it is established to him concerning the liberty of the parties, nevertheless he cannot take a step toward the celebration before license has first been obtained. Necessity would certainly excuse, for example, a marriage to be legitimated in a case of death, where there would be danger in delay; but even in this case the pastor is bound according to his powers to guard beforehand against the danger of nullity of the sacrament. - Cf. Vermeersch, l. c., n. 62. - Besson, l. c., n. 86; Pezzani, l. c., n. 98, 99. - Gennari, l. c., p. 31. - Creagh, l. c., p. 48.

Question 8. What if one of the spouses is a wanderer?

Resp. The disposition of this canon, which renews the Tridentine decree, must be observed. Therefore the pastor must bring the matter to the Ordinary or delegate, and, after permission has been received, he can licitly assist at the marriage without license of the pastor of the other spouse being sought; for he himself is then the proper pastor at least as regards the effect of this canon. - Cf. Vermeersch, l. c., n. 63. - Besson, l. c., p. 90, 1° (d). - Gennari, Il Monitore Ecclesias., Sec. Ser., v. 10, p. 90.

Question 9. Who ought to assist when the bridegroom and bride are from diverse parishes?

Resp. In any case, let it be held as a rule that marriage be celebrated before the pastor of the bride unless some just cause excuses. - Cf. Can. 1097, § 2.

The same must be said here concerning pastor as also before: namely, he is the one in whose parish the bride either is domiciled or quasi-domiciled or has already stayed for a month. Hence if the bride is subject to one pastor only by reason of that stay, but the man to another by reason of domicile, regularly the marriage is to be celebrated before the former, because he, in the sense of this law, is the woman's pastor.

By this paragraph a norm is established by which matters may proceed better. But from following this norm any just cause of convenience or utility excuses, indeed the very desire of the spouses, if they refuse to present themselves before another pastor. A grave reason is not required here, but simply a just one. Wherefore we also judge with Vermeersch, l. c., n. 64, that the obligation of this paragraph is not grave. Therefore pastors of brides ought not to be excessive in urging their right.

"Marriages of Catholics of mixed rite, unless something else has been provided by particular law, are to be celebrated in the rite of the man and before his pastor" (Can. 1097, § 2). Marriages both among the Greek-Ruthenian faithful and among the faithful of mixed rite are to be blessed in the rite of the woman by the pastor of the woman. Thus S. C. de Prop. F., 17 Aug. 1914, De Spirituali Administratione Ecclesiae Graeco-Ruthenae in Foederatis Civitatibus Americae Septentrionalis.

Question 10. What if the bride has domicile in one parish, but monthly stay in another?

Resp. The celebration can licitly take place before the pastor either of the domicile or of the monthly stay.

Question 11. Can this rule be observed when the bride is a wanderer?

Resp. Affirmatively of itself. "In any case," the canon says. And although very often there is a just cause of celebrating before the pastor of the bridegroom, nevertheless to the bride is attributed a right before the bridegroom, nor can any indication be found of a contrary will of the legislator. - Cf. Besson, l. c., p. 88. - Vermeersch, l. c., n. 64. Nevertheless see above, Question 8.

1°. For the valid celebration of Marriage the Code designates any pastor in his own territory; but for licit celebration, the pastor either of domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay. Therefore his competence for validity is restricted to the limits of his own parish; for liceity, to persons domiciled or quasi-domiciled or already staying for a month in the parish. Within his own territory he validly assists at all marriages; outside it, without delegation, at none. Within his own territory he licitly assists at marriages of his own people, whether by reason of domicile or quasi-domicile or by reason of that stay, but not of strangers without license.

2°. Since domicile is immediately acquired by the fact of habitation in some parish with the intention of remaining there perpetually, of itself it would be licit to celebrate marriage immediately.

3°. Simple monthly stay in a parish suffices for licit celebration; therefore whether someone happens to be there by chance, or went there purposely for the sake of wedlock, he contracts licitly in that place before the pastor. For stay in fraud of the law is no longer to be considered.

As regards the liceity of assistance within one's own territory, the following should be kept before the eyes:

Both parties have domicile or monthly stay in the parish of the contract; or only one party, while the other has it elsewhere or does not have it; or neither party.

As regards the first hypothesis: the pastor or local Ordinary, or one delegated by either, can assist from the first day of acquired domicile according to the things just said, or, if they are not domiciled, only after a month.

As regards the second hypothesis: that one party is either the bride or the bridegroom, and the other party, as we first suppose, is not a wanderer. If it is the bride, the pastor can always licitly assist; if it is the bridegroom, regularly the pastor cannot licitly assist unless there is a just cause excusing from the norm prescribed in § 2; if the other party is a wanderer, the matter is to be brought to the Ordinary or to the delegate, and license is to be obtained from him.

As regards the third hypothesis: when neither party has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of the contract, either each has it elsewhere, or both or one or the other is a wanderer. When each has it elsewhere, the pastor of the place of the contract ought not to assist before he has received license from the pastor of the bride; but if a just cause is present, let him have recourse to the pastor of the bridegroom; if, however, grave necessity urges, he assists by law without license. When both or one or the other is a wanderer, the matter must be arranged with the Ordinary.

The pastor, for example of St. Aloysius, licitly assists at nuptials between Titius and Bertha in the following cases, supposing that their free state is legitimately established:

1°. Titius and Bertha have domicile in the parish of St. Aloysius.

2°. Titius and Bertha have monthly stay in the same parish.

3°. Bertha has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Aloysius; Titius has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Joseph.

4°. Titius has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Aloysius, Bertha in the parish of St. Patrick; nevertheless a just cause is present excusing them from contracting before the pastor of the bride.

5°. Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Aloysius, Bertha is a wanderer; the pastor of St. Aloysius has received license to assist from the Ordinary or from a priest delegated for that.

6°. Titius is a wanderer, Bertha has monthly stay in the parish of St. Aloysius. Necessity of celebrating immediately urges.

7°. Titius and Bertha have domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Joseph; the pastor of St. Aloysius has received license to assist from the Ordinary or from the pastor of the spouses.

8°. Titius and Bertha have domicile in the parish of St. Joseph; grave necessity intervenes excusing from obtaining the aforesaid license.

9°. Titius has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Joseph, Bertha in the parish of St. Mark; the pastor of St. Aloysius has obtained license from the pastor of the bride, or from the Ordinary.

10°. Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Peter, Bertha in the parish of St. Mark. There is present a just cause excusing them from entering marriage before the pastor of the bride, who refuses to give license justly sought to the pastor of St. Aloysius. This latter has received it either from the Ordinary or from the pastor of the bridegroom.

11°. Titius and Bertha are wanderers; or, Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Patrick and Bertha is a wanderer. The pastor of St. Aloysius, after the matter has been brought to the Ordinary or delegate, has obtained license to assist.

12°. Titius and Bertha are wanderers; or, Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Patrick, Bertha is a wanderer. They present themselves before the pastor of St. Aloysius. The necessity of celebrating urges.

§ 1. License of assisting at marriage, conceded according to the norm of can. 1095, § 2, must be given expressly to a determinate priest for a determinate marriage, with any general delegations excluded, unless it is a question of cooperating vicars for the parish to which they are attached; otherwise it is invalid.¹

§ 2. The pastor or local Ordinary is not to concede license unless all things which the law constitutes for proving the liberty of state have been fulfilled (Can. 1096).

Therefore a priest who is not pastor or Ordinary needs license from either one so that he may validly and licitly assist. This license is not delegation properly so called, and therefore perhaps in the article that word is employed, not this one. Concerning it, what Wernz already skillfully observed in his excellent work, v. 4, n. 180, 1, must be noted: "The concession of license to assist is not an act of jurisdiction by which ecclesiastical jurisdiction is truly delegated to another, but by better right is called the substitution of another authorized witness, by force of the faculty received from the Council of Trent, which has great likeness with delegation."

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1109, n. 52; p. 1150, n. 125.

Question 1. Who is the delegating pastor or Ordinary?

Resp. The Ordinary or pastor is understood not of the contracting parties, but of the place in which the matrimonial contract is celebrated: the Ordinary, namely, for his diocese, and the pastor for the parish. For validity requires the assistance of the pastor or Ordinary of the place of contract, or of one delegated by either. Hence if a priest assisted in some territory without delegation from the Ordinary or pastor of this place, although with license of the pastor of the contracting parties, the marriage would be invalid.

Question 2. To whom can this license or delegation be conceded?

Resp. This license or delegation can be conceded only to a priest, and to one certain and determinate, but not to a deacon, nor to an indeterminate priest. Delegation is validly made by naming the priest personally, or by designating his office, for example, Father N.; the pastor of St. Patrick; the first assistant of the church of St. Anne; the chaplain of St. Mary's orphanage; for in all these cases the priest is truly determinate and certain. But delegation by which the choice of any priest at pleasure is left to the spouses is null; for it is made to an indeterminate person.

Question 3. In what way must this delegation be made?

Resp. The Code prescribes no mode. Wherefore it can be conceded to the delegate either in writing or by living voice, without intermediary or through a messenger, absolutely or conditionally. - Cf. Wernz, l. c.