The Time for Saying Mass

How often it is licit to celebrate on the same day.

205. By divine law indeed nothing stands in the way of Mass being celebrated several times on the same day; but by ecclesiastical law it is licit to celebrate only once in a day,¹ except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, and when power has been given by the Holy See or by the ordinary of the place.

1. On the day of the Nativity of the Lord all priests can celebrate three Masses (assigned in the Missal for this day), but are not bound to do so, so that they can celebrate either three or two or only one.²

a. If a priest celebrates only one or two Masses, he ought to choose that which approximately corresponds to the hour of celebration, i.e., the first if he celebrates at midnight, the second if at dawn, the third if after dawn.

b. To dim-sighted priests who by privilege say daily a Mass of the Blessed Virgin, on the day of the Nativity of the Lord by concession of Benedict XV it is licit to celebrate the same votive Mass three times.³

c. A priest who on the day of the Nativity, by force of an indult, can celebrate in a private oratory by reason of his own illness or that of a neighbor, licitly says three Masses.⁴

d. Formerly there was doubt whether a priest who must complete a sacred rite begun by another but not finished could still celebrate; this doubt, however, was defined negatively by the Holy See.⁵

2. On the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed it is licit for all priests to celebrate three Masses, of which they can apply one to whomever they prefer and can receive a stipend for it; another, without stipend, they must apply for all the faithful departed; and a third, likewise without stipend, according to the mind of the supreme Pontiff.⁶

a. In Spain, Portugal, in the Philippine Islands, and in Latin America, by concession of Benedict XIV, all priests, both secular and regular, on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed could celebrate three Masses for the departed;⁷ this privilege has now been extended to the universal Church.

b. On this day itself all altars are privileged.

c. Moreover these Masses are to be said: the first, which is had in the Missal on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed; the other, which is read in the Missal in the Anniversary of the Departed, with the sequence and proper prayers; the third, which is in the Missal for daily Masses with the sequence and proper prayers.⁸

d. He who celebrates only one must read that which is had in the Missal on the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed; the same must be used by him who is going to celebrate Mass with chant; this one can anticipate the second and third.

e. For the Mass for which a stipend can be accepted, it is not licit to accept more unless it is offered freely; nor is it licit, by reason of external inconvenience, to accept anything for the other two Masses; nor is it licit, once a stipend has been accepted, to apply two Masses according to one's own choice and on another day to offer two according to the prescribed intention without stipend.⁹

f. A priest who celebrates only one Mass can apply it (with a stipend accepted) according to his own intention; he who celebrates two must apply one or the other for all the faithful departed.¹⁰

3. By concession of the Holy See or of the ordinary it is licit to celebrate twice in a day, or to binate; but without a special apostolic privilege it is never licit to celebrate three Masses on the same day.¹¹

This privilege is very rarely granted and only because of extraordinary causes, as it was granted for five years to the Mexican diocese¹² and, on account of a great lack of priests, also to the diocese of Tulancingo in the Mexican province.¹³ In the time of the great war it was granted to military chaplains.

Note. The laws of the Church concerning the iteration of Mass were diverse at diverse times. In the first centuries scarcely any trace of Mass repeated on the same day occurs; but in the middle age, especially after the thirteenth century, the practice of repeating Mass grew strong. A twofold inconvenience especially arose from repeated celebration: namely the appearance and suspicion of avarice because of the doubled stipend received from celebration, and the danger that priests might neglect other pastoral duties. Wherefore it happened that the abuse of repeated celebration had to be prohibited. In the Council of Trent and in the new Code of Canon Law the laws now in force were enacted, according to which, except in the case of necessity, it is not licit to binate.

¹ Cn. 806.

² S. C. R., 18 June 1875, n. 3355.

³ S. R. C., 26 Jan. 1920.

⁴ S. C. C., 13 Jan. 1725.

⁵ S. C. R., 16 Dec. 1823, n. 2630.

⁶ Constitution Incruentum Altaris of Benedict XV, 10 Aug. 1915. Cn. 806, 1.

⁷ Const. Quod expensis, 27 Aug. 1748.

⁸ S. C. R., 11 Aug. 1915.

⁹ S. C. C., 15 Oct. 1915.

¹⁰ S. C. R., 28 Feb. 1917.

¹¹ Cn. 806, 1.

¹² S. C. C., 29 Mar. 1896.

¹³ S. C. C., 9 Sept. 1899.

206. On the faculty of binating. 1. The ordinary cannot grant the faculty of binating except in a case of necessity, where namely, because of a lack of priests, on a feast day of precept a notable part of the faithful could not hear Mass.¹ This necessity can happen in two ways:

a. If one priest administers two parishes which are so distant from each other that the people of each parish cannot be present at the same sacred rite, and there is no other priest who may celebrate in the other place.

b. If the people of the same whole parish, whether because of narrowness of place or for other causes, cannot come together at the same Mass, and there is no other priest.

alpha. Hence, if in a parish whose pastor has the faculty of binating there happens to be staying a priest who is going to celebrate the other Mass, the faculty of binating ceases, since the necessity, which is the sole reason of this faculty, ceases.

beta. Previously, indeed, another Mass was customarily celebrated also because of spiritual utility, e.g., so that the people could hear the sacred rite on suppressed feast days; so that, at the arrival of a pious pilgrimage, of a bishop, of a prince, or in the celebration of nuptials or obsequies, there might be an opportunity of hearing the sacred rite; so that nobles could hear Mass on feast days in a private oratory. But from the law now in force, bination is permitted only in a case of necessity.

gamma. If viaticum to be carried to a dying person must be confected, the priest who is still fasting can and must binate, i.e., he who after the consecration and before the purification has been taken is informed; indeed probably even a priest who is not fasting can do this (n. 155).

2. The judgment concerning the existence of necessity is committed to the prudence of the ordinary,² wherefore the faculty of binating must be sought from him, on whom its concession depends.

a. Nevertheless in an unforeseen case of urgent necessity, in which recourse to the bishop is impossible, the other Mass can be celebrated from presumed license, provided the celebrant is fasting.³ Thus, for example, in a place where two priests exercise the care of souls, if on Saturday one of them is seized by illness, so that on the following day he cannot celebrate, the other can binate on Sunday, if another priest cannot be had and otherwise a great part of the people (about 60 persons) would lack the sacred rite. After the fact, however, the matter must be referred to the ordinary for recognition of the cause.

b. Since this faculty of binating is granted because of the necessity of the people, it is not personal but real; and therefore if the priest to whom it was granted cannot celebrate, another priest who supplies his place can be called.

3. Outside the case of necessity, for obtaining the faculty of binating recourse must be had to the Holy See, which grants it in extraordinary cases.

A case of this kind is judged extraordinary if the people or a great part of them could not hear Mass on a day, not indeed of precept, but of great devotion, or if in mission regions the faithful rarely have the opportunity of hearing Mass.

¹ Cn. 806, 2.

² Cn. 806, 2.

³ Cf. Gury, Casus conscientiae, II, n. 264.

207. On accepting a stipend for the other Mass. In order that every occasion of base gain from the celebration of Masses might be excluded, the Church has always prohibited those binating, without a special privilege, from accepting a stipend for the second Mass, or from satisfying through it an obligation of justice, whether their own or another's.¹ Nevertheless, nothing prevents them from satisfying through it an obligation of charity or of gratitude.² License for accepting a stipend for the second Mass is sometimes granted by reason of the poverty of the celebrants or in favor of a pious cause. But compensation which is attributed to the celebrant in view of extraordinary labor or inconvenience, as if the Mass must be celebrated in a distant place, does not have the character of the stipend prohibited by the Church.³

a. The application of the fruits of the second Mass is permitted to the judgment of the celebrant, unless he must apply for the people. But if against the grave prohibition of the Church he has accepted a stipend for the Mass of bination, he is bound to its restitution, since the title of retaining it is lacking.

b. The prohibition of accepting a stipend for the second Mass must not be taken in such a way that a stipend cannot be accepted for the second Mass itself, but in such a way that another or second stipend cannot be accepted; but it makes no difference whether the licit stipend is accepted for the first or for the second.

c. Therefore pastors who binate and who must apply one sacred rite for the people can accept a stipend for neither Mass; nevertheless through the second Mass they can satisfy the burden of applying for the people on Sundays and feast days, if they must apply twice for the people.

d. Priests who from the statutes of the sodality to which they have given their name are bound to celebrate a Mass for a deceased member can satisfy this obligation by applying the second Mass on the day of bination,⁴ because they are not bound to this application from justice.

e. From the prohibition of receiving on the same day a double stipend there are excepted the three Masses which it is licit to celebrate on the solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord: for for these three stipends can be accepted, as the S. C. C. has declared several times. On the same day the pastor is bound to offer one sacred rite for the people; for the rest he can accept a stipend.

Note. Concerning the rite to be observed in the repetition of Mass, the appendix of the Roman Ritual should be consulted, where there is an instruction of the S. C. R. issued 12 Sept. 1857 for a priest having apostolic faculty of celebrating Mass twice on the same day.

¹ S. C. C., 19 Dec. 1835; 25 Sept. 1858; 21 Mar. 1863. Cn. 824, 2.

² S. C. C., several times, but recently in Trevir., 6 Aug. 1881.

³ S. C. C., 23 May 1861.

⁴ S. C. C., 5 Mar. 1887.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Causes for anticipating or deferring Mass are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁵ 29 March 1566.

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

381. Principles. - I. It is lawful to celebrate daily, and indeed this is praiseworthy, unless the unworthiness of the celebrant or a special prohibition of the Church stands in the way. The Church prohibits Mass from being celebrated on the day of Parasceve, or Friday of Holy Week; likewise, it prohibits several Masses from being offered in the same church on Thursday and Saturday of the same Week without necessity. This is established from various Decrees of the Congregation of Rites ¹. - St. Lig., no. 350.

¹ These Decrees provide that no private Mass be said in churches besides the conventual Mass. By these decrees, however, it is not prohibited that in churches of Regulars who lack a private oratory, another Mass be celebrated on Thursday of Holy Week for distributing Easter Communion to the sick. It is prescribed, however, that this be done with the doors closed.

It is not ordinarily lawful, apart from a special privilege, to celebrate before dawn or after midday, nor before the recitation of the Matins of the Office ². For it is thus stated in the Rubrics of the Missal: A private Mass can be said, at least after Matins and Lauds, at any hour from dawn until midday. It is lawful, however, to begin Mass before dawn, provided that it is not completed before dawn. It is likewise lawful to prolong the celebration beyond midday, provided that it is at least begun at midday; for the time of dawn and midday is to be understood not mathematically, but morally. - St. Lig., no. 341, and others.

² This clause from sec. XV regards not the hour of celebrating commonly prescribed for priests, but the order to be observed between the recitation of the Breviary and the celebration of Mass for canons who sing in choir. Therefore, it is added in the same place when the Mass must otherwise be celebrated after the recitation of Prime, or Terce, or Sext. But with regard to the other Rubric (sec. 1, De ritu servando, etc.), where it is said: The priest who is to celebrate Mass... after at least Matins together with Lauds has been completed, should devote himself somewhat to prayer, and should say the prayers placed below according to the opportunity of the time; it could be observed that, just as no one until now has judged a privilege necessary for omitting the prayers in question, so it could not absurdly be thought concerning the recitation of Matins by force of that context.

III. In like manner, a privilege of celebrating one hour before dawn or after midday ought to be understood as one hour before or after the time assigned to others who are not privileged; otherwise the privilege would be of little benefit. - Thus St. Lig., no. 346, and others commonly.

382. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Does one who celebrates before dawn or after midday sin gravely?

Reply. Affirmatively, if he anticipates or prolongs by much the time established by the Church; but otherwise, if the change is slight. Indeed, if a just cause is present, he will be free from every fault. But what is to be regarded as a notable change is disputed. According to the more common and more probable opinion, it is not held grave unless the celebration is begun a full hour before or after the established time. - St. Lig., no. 346.

QUESTION 2. When is it lawful to anticipate the time of celebration?

Reply. 1. In necessity, for example, so that Viaticum may be administered to a dying person, in which case it would be lawful to celebrate even at midnight. 2. Where there is a reasonable custom, for example, so that artisans and servants may be able to hear Mass very early in the morning. 3. By force of a privilege granted by the Pope or Bishop ³. - See St. Lig., no. 343 et seq.

³ St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, no. 344) adds other cases, namely: 1. After the solemn Mass on a feast, if the solemn Mass is prolonged to an hour or more after midday, and indeed probably even after two hours..., lest a large part of the people be deprived of Mass. 2. For the cause of a journey, for one hour after midday or before dawn. 3. Likewise on account of the funeral of some great person, or of a sermon, or of a public supplication.

QUESTION 3. What kind of sin is it to celebrate Mass before the recitation of Matins?

Reply. More probably, it is only a venial sin, because no grave disorder appears in this, unless it is done from contempt and habitually without any cause. But any reasonable cause excuses from every sin. - Thus St. Lig. with others commonly ⁴.

⁴ St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, no. 347) says that there are three opinions of the Doctors concerning this question. The second of them holds that there is no fault in this, because no law appears which prescribes it under fault; and the rubric is only of counsel, not of precept. See the preceding Note.

383. QUESTION 4. Is it lawful to celebrate more than once in a day?

Reply. Negatively, speaking generally, according to the present practice of the Church, although formerly it was not prohibited. This is established from various places of Canon Law and from the Decree of Benedict XIV of March 16, 1746.

Except: 1. The feast of the Nativity of the Lord, on which it is lawful to celebrate three Masses. 2. If a pastor, before the ablution, is informed that Communion is to be given to a sick person, and he has already consumed his own Host, and no other fasting priest can be found. Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 351.

QUESTION 5. When is it lawful to celebrate Mass twice in a day with the permission of the Bishop?

Reply. With the Bishop permitting, Mass can be celebrated twice by the same priest on Sundays and feast days of precept if a grave cause or some necessity requires it, but not on account of custom alone. - Benedict XIV, Const. Declarasti nobis, and Const. Consuluisti de celebratione Missae. But the abuse of celebrating twice in the same church in which several Masses had already been offered was reproved by the S. Congregation of Rites, and the response was: It is not expedient, and the abuse is to be eliminated. - May 22 and Sept. 11, 1841.

QUESTION 6. When is there judged to be a necessity of celebrating twice in a day? Reply. In three cases, according to the common opinion of theologians, namely: 1. When a parish priest has two parishes to govern, and the inhabitants of one cannot go to the church of the other, nor is there available another priest who could celebrate in either one. 2. When in the same parish some part of the people is too far distant from the church and could easily assemble in some chapel or in another church; it was answered to the Bishop of Langres in the year 1847 that it was sufficient for this if a certain community consisting of twenty persons were one mile distant from the church. - Revue des sciences ecclesiastiques, vol. 6, July 1862, pp. 93-94. 3. When the whole people cannot assemble in a parish church that is too small, and there is no other priest who can celebrate another Mass; for then the Bishop can permit the parish priest to offer Mass twice in the same church. - See Bouix, De Parocho, no. 470. - Likewise Revue des sciences ecclesiastiques, ibid.

QUESTION 7. Can one who celebrates two Masses accept a doubled stipend?

Reply. Negatively; and Pius IX strictly prohibited this. - Thus the S. Congregation of the Council, Sept. 25, 1858, in una Galliarum. But does the supplement to his allowance, which is generally given to a priest celebrating two Masses in consideration of his fatigue, have the character of a stipend?

The S. Congregation of the Council replied negatively in March 1861.

QUESTION 8. In this case would it be lawful to accept a double stipend on the condition that the second stipend be expended for a pious use?

Reply. Negatively, without an Indult of the Supreme Pontiff, which the Pontiff indeed refused to grant to the Archbishop of Cologne. - Thus the S. Congregation of the Council, March 21, 1863.

384. QUESTION 9. Is it lawful on the night of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate all three Masses before dawn?

Reply. Negatively, without the permission of the Bishop for a just cause, or without an Apostolic indult. For the Rubric of the Missal expressly prohibits this, which reads thus: The first Mass is said in the night; the second at dawn; and the third in the day. This is also established from the Decree of the S. Congregation of Rites issued on Dec. 18, 1702, which reads thus: It is not lawful at midnight of the Nativity of the Lord successively to celebrate the other two Masses and to distribute Holy Communion. - St. Lig., no. 343.

QUESTION 10. For what length of time ought a Low Mass to last?

Reply. The general rule is that the Mass ought neither to be longer than half an hour, lest those present be affected with weariness, nor shorter than a third of an hour, because otherwise it cannot be celebrated becomingly. But you will not excuse from mortal sin a priest who, in offering Mass, does not reach a quarter of an hour, according to that couplet received by custom:

If your Mass shall have been shorter than one quarter, You will be believed guilty of mortal fault.

St. Ligorius adduces the reason: because in so short a space he must necessarily commit two grave defects, the one of grave irreverence toward the Sacrament, the other of grave scandal toward the people. But it is to be desired, and earnestly commended to all priests, that in offering Mass they complete half an hour ⁵.

⁵ On this matter St. Alphonsus speaks thus (Lib. 6, no. 400): Preachers cry out, writers rightly teaching cry out, that the completion of Mass in less than a quarter of an hour cannot be excused from grave fault; but how many are there who take care to avoid these things? Corruption of this kind ought to be pursued not with the pen, but with tears, while daily we see the greatest part of priests perform this tremendous Sacrifice worse than they treat temporal affairs of lighter moment, yawning in such a way that they seem to have no faith in so great a mystery.

385. QUESTION 11. How much time, after Mass has been completed, ought to be spent in giving thanks to God?

Reply. There is no altogether certain rule. But the more lenient require at least a quarter of an hour. - St. Lig. earnestly advises that at least half an hour be devoted to this pious exercise by a priest, who ought to furnish an example to the faithful ⁶. On this matter, see St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, no. 400).

⁶ Thus St. Alphonsus (Prax. Confess., no. 156): Let the Confessor take care to suggest to the penitent that after Communion he remain in thanksgiving for the time that he can. Very few are the Directors who diligently do this, namely, inculcate in their penitents that they give thanks for some notable time after receiving the Eucharist; and the reason is that there are very few priests who, after the Sacrifice of the Mass, remain with Jesus Christ in thanksgiving, and therefore they are ashamed to suggest to others what they themselves do not do. Thanksgiving ordinarily ought to last for a full hour; let it be done at least for half an hour, in which the soul may exercise itself in loving and petitioning. St. Teresa says that after Communion Jesus exists in the soul as upon a throne of mercy, that He may bestow graces upon it, saying: What wilt thou that I do to thee? And elsewhere: After Communion let us not omit so excellent an opportunity for conducting business. His divine Majesty is not accustomed to repay hospitality badly if He is well received in the soul.

“1. The faculty of celebrating Mass twice in one day, with which the Holy See is accustomed to invest the Ordinaries of missions so that they in turn may communicate it to their missionaries, has raised not a few doubts which those same persons have proposed to this Sacred Congregation. The reason for doubts of this kind is drawn from the very rigor of the clauses which, by command of Alexander VII, were added to the article of the Formularies which treats of this faculty. Therefore, it has seemed opportune in this present Instruction to gather together the more common rules and principles which are to be kept before one’s eyes in the use of the aforesaid faculty.

“2. No one is ignorant that, according to the general rule under the prevailing discipline of the Church, priests are permitted to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in a day. Thus Innocent III established: ‘We respond that, except on the day of the Lord’s Nativity, unless a cause of necessity counsels otherwise, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one Mass once in a day.’ Chapter Consuluisti, On the Celebration of Masses.

“3. Therefore, in a case of necessity, a repetition of Mass on the same day is permitted to priests. Yet this must be understood, as is recognized from the very words of the Formularies, of permission to celebrate only two Masses, even if grave causes should concur which counsel celebrating a greater number. The Prefect of the Capuchin mission at Tunis once asked whether, if necessity urged, he could celebrate more than two Masses on one and the same day, because all his missionaries had been cast into prison. And the general Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 7 August 1684 that by virtue of the faculties he could not celebrate more than two Masses. This had already long before been answered in the general Congregation held before the Holy Father on 17 February 1648; for, when the abuse which had grown up among priests held in captivity in Algeria of celebrating three Masses was set forth, ‘His Holiness ... commanded that, through the said Prefect of Algeria, the priests be ordered in the name of His Holiness ... that, since the Apostolic See in the faculties of missionaries had granted the power or permission of celebrating twice in a day where necessity required it, they should henceforth not celebrate more than two Masses.’ The same thing was repeated to the Apostolic Prefect of Tunis in the years 1818 and 1820.

“4. Necessity, therefore, is the sole title by which the faculty of saying two Masses is given to priests. Nevertheless, it is first useful to observe with Verricelli that ‘this necessity is not to be drawn from the side of the scarcity of priests, but from the side of the spiritual necessity of the people and the charity of priests.’ On Apostolic Missions, title IV, question 98, doubt 18, no. 201. Once this principle is established, it is easy to derive certain negative rules concerning the use of the faculty in question.

“5. First, it is evident that one would not think rightly who said that Mass could be repeated on suppressed feast days on which the people are not bound to hear Mass, as the Sacred Congregation admonished in the year 1837 in these words: ‘The matter having been maturely considered, it became sufficiently clear from the words of the Formula itself that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated feasts. For since it is declared in the aforesaid Formula that the faculty has force if necessity urges, it follows that Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same priest on the sole title that those days were formerly feast days.’

“6. Second. The repetition of Mass is likewise forbidden for the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private chapels. In the year 1842 the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg related the custom which had grown up in his Vicariate of permitting a repetition of Mass in the castles of magnates; but since he did not think that, in those circumstances, there existed the necessity which the Formularies require, he asked, both by reason of the custom and by reason of the moral utility which arose from it, that authority to permit this be granted to him. But the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition judged, according to the matters set forth, that it was not expedient. And when the Apostolic Vicar added that some continued the repetition of Mass by a faculty previously received from his predecessor, the Supreme Sacred Congregation decreed that the faculty was to be revoked insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg prudently judged that this could be done.

“7. Third. From resolutions of this kind it is inferred that custom is not a sufficient title for the same priest to be able to offer the Holy Sacrifice twice on one and the same day. This also agrees with what Benedict XIV taught in the Constitution Declarasti nobis, given on 16 March 1746 to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon. ‘We ask only,’ says the Pontiff, ‘whether that custom has acquired for itself the character of prescription or presumption, and we judge each to be false and inapplicable.’ And as regards prescription, he says: ‘For if, according to the civil laws, sacred things cannot be acquired by prescription, it is absurd on every side to assert that something has been obtained or acquired by prescription which is opposed to the universal sanctions of the Church, the observance of which the Holy Council of Trent commands all priests in the celebration of Masses.’ But concerning presumption he adds: ‘But, other things having been passed over, We add that these things can be understood of those privileges which could have been obtained from the Apostolic See if someone had petitioned for them, but not of those which, when they are petitioned for, are altogether accustomed to be denied, lest presumption have greater strength and weight than truth.’ Hence it is that, when the Sacred Congregation learned that in some place the custom of repeating Mass without necessity had grown up, it did not fail to reprove a custom of this kind as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of the Bishops to eliminate it.

“8. Fourth. Nor is the poverty of priests sufficient to prove the repetition of Mass, as has been indicated from Verricelli in the place cited. A certain Archbishop of Ireland asked in the year 1688: ‘Whether, from the cause of poverty alone, regulars may celebrate two Masses on feast days in private houses, although all parishes and convents have their own churches and chapels?’ The response of the Sacred Congregation was negative. When it was reported in particular Congregations for the Propagation of the Faith, held both on 7 March 1743 and on 28 July 1750, that an abuse of this kind still flourished in Ireland, because many priests used the faculty of repeating Mass for no other reason than that they might receive richer and more plentiful alms and thereby support themselves more comfortably, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: ‘Let the priests be gravely admonished not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in a day so that they may have a larger and richer stipend.’ And in the Constitution Apostolicum ministerium, 30 May 1753, § 11, Benedict XIV calls intolerable the abuse of granting to some priest the faculty of repeating Mass for the purpose that he might support himself more becomingly by a double alms. Only in order to provide in some manner for the poor religious of that kingdom, who had complained about a similar prohibition made by the Provincial Synod of Tuam in the year 1817 because of the loss arising therefrom—the alms which they had been accustomed to receive at the doors of the church on the occasion of Mass having been taken away from them, although they lived from the offerings of the faithful—the Sacred Congregation willed that the Bishops be admonished that, ‘in imparting, by Apostolic authority, permission to priests to celebrate two Masses on feast days of precept for causes of necessity approved by the Apostolic Constitutions, they should take account of regular priests, and especially of those who dwell in poor monasteries.’ Moreover, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that, ‘according to general practice, priests are not permitted to receive an alms for the second Mass, even if it concerns those who, endowed with the parochial office, therefore cannot obtain a stipend for the first Mass because they are bound to apply it for the people,’ as was notified to the Ordinaries of missions through the circular letters of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 15 October 1863, every pretext for the abuse of repeating Mass with a view to the stipend has now been removed. Nevertheless, account having been taken of the peculiar circumstances of certain missions, the Most Holy Father deigned to grant authority, as is evident from the said Circular Letters, to their Ordinaries to permit ‘that, when a just and grave cause intervenes, the priests subject to them may and can receive a stipend even for the second Mass to be celebrated on the same day.’

“9. Fifth. Finally, it is scarcely necessary to note that the repetition of Mass is forbidden to a priest whenever another priest can be had who is able to satisfy the necessity of the people, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the cited Constitution Declarasti nobis. Hence it is that, before a repetition of Mass is admitted, it must be seen whether some one of the remedies established by law is available for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and first of all the Pastor himself is bound to furnish a stipend to another priest; but, his inability being posited, the people are bound; and finally, if the people also could not be compelled to this because of poverty, the Ordinary would be bound to supply it. Benedict XIV, place cited; Opinion of Cardinal Zelada, Thesaurus of Resolutions, vol. 57, in the case of Tortosa, 26 August 1768.

“10. Thus far concerning the cases in which the repetition of Mass is prohibited. As regards the cases in which the necessity required for it concurs, these are found set forth in the Constitution Declarasti nobis. In this Constitution it is first considered, according to the unanimous consent of theologians, that repetition of Mass is permitted to a priest ‘who holds two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present with the Pastor celebrating on feast days because of the very great distance of the places.’ And this is the first and more common case. The other which is recounted there is ‘when there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated and to which the entire people cannot come together at the same time.’

“11. In these cases Mass can be repeated even by those who have not been granted the faculty through the Formularies customarily granted by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, since the common law itself grants it, yet always dependently upon the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to render judgment both concerning true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying the canonical remedies (§ 9). Indeed, after indicating remedies of this kind, Benedict XIV adds: ‘The things which have been said thus far also rest upon the general canonical sanctions.’ Indeed, the opinion of theologians is concordant, as Benedict XIV himself observes, that in the case of one Pastor with two parishes, ‘the Pastor not only can but is plainly bound to celebrate Mass twice on the same day.’ On the Diocesan Synod, book 6, chapter 8, no. 2. From these things it easily follows that the article of the Formularies, since it grants a faculty, extends also to other cases of necessity not considered in the common law; otherwise that article would become useless, at least for those places in which parishes have been canonically erected, since the common law itself provides for these parishes. This agrees with what Benedict XIV teaches in his work On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, book 3, chapter 5, no. 4, in which, after asserting that ‘the case which actually occurs is that in which a Pastor has two parishes,’ etc., he continues in these words: ‘Nevertheless, We do not will anything to be prejudged concerning the other cases which occur in missions, for which provision has been made by granting missionaries the faculty to celebrate Mass more than once on the same day; and likewise concerning other cases in which, either because of the distance of places, the scarcity of priests, or the persecution of unbelievers, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by priests lest the faithful be deprived of Mass.’ And the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was indeed speaking in the year 1832 about causes of this kind which have place in missions and for which the faculty is given to the superiors of missions, when it gave an opportune admonition to a certain missionary of Philippopolis who did not repeat Masses although he presided over various Christian communities. Namely, when the repetition of Mass was enjoined upon him, also by command of the general Congregation, it was added: ‘But if you ask why those rigorous clauses are added to the faculty of repeating Mass in the Formula of the Indult, you will find the response in the Formula itself; for you will observe that the Indult is not restricted to the needs of the people on feast days, but, since it is contained in general terms, it also comprehends the other cases in question, such as the necessity of administering Viaticum to the sick in each parish, and that the prescribed precautions ought to have place in other cases of this kind.’

“12. And in these less frequent cases, Bishops and missionaries have repeatedly seemed to hesitate in the use of that faculty, doubting especially about the sufficiency of the causes which would be required according to the clauses added to the faculty. But so many and so various are the cases which can occur in missions in this matter that they cannot easily be foreseen, much less reduced to determinate rules; for judgment concerning them can vary according to the differing concurrent circumstances of places, times, and persons. This is the reason why the resolution of particular doubts which have been proposed concerning this matter has generally been remitted to the prudent judgment of the superior of the mission.

“13. First, a rule has rather frequently been sought concerning the number of the faithful which would be sufficient for Mass to be repeated. In the Constitution Apostolicum ministerium, issued for England, it is said that a faculty of this kind can be used ‘when the number of those who on feast days are bound to assist at the sacred rites presents such a necessity that, unless the power to celebrate two Masses on the same day is granted to some priest, many would not satisfy the command of the Church.’ Nevertheless, a general norm of this kind does not remove every doubt concerning the number necessary for repetition. The same can be said of a certain negative response given by the Sacred Inquisition in the year 1688 to Capuchin missionaries in Greece. They had asked: ‘Whether a missionary priest, dwelling alone in a place, can celebrate two Masses on Sundays and feast days for fifteen or twenty persons who, legitimately impeded, were unable to be present at the first Mass?’ And the Supreme Sacred Inquisition on 28 January of the same year decreed: It is not lawful. But if the number of twenty faithful is not deemed sufficient for Mass to be repeated, it can further be asked what minimum number is sufficient.

“14. But concerning a doubt of this kind, just as concerning those which regard distance, the Sacred Congregation was accustomed to hold that these matters were to be resolved by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries of missions, upon whom the faculty depends; for they themselves, in the places in which they dwell, can rightly estimate the circumstances concurring in individual cases. And indeed, as far back as the year 1688, the Prefect of the mission of Tunis in Mauretania asked in general that it be declared what the number of the faithful deprived of Mass ought to be for Mass to be repeated; and the General Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 16 November: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Prefect. Similarly, in the year 1828 the Bishop of St. Louis in the United States of America, having set forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their conscience because of the clauses of the Formularies, asked: ‘Whether, whenever thirty or fifty of the faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing the Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice?’ But, by command of Leo XII, it was rescripted in letters given on 13 March: ‘You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind and, without being disturbed by the rigor of the words, He—His Holiness—commits it to your conscience and prudence to judge in which cases, account having been taken of the circumstances of your diocese, grave causes are to be deemed present for imparting the faculty in question to priests. But where you have judged according to your conscience and prudence that these grave causes are present, His Holiness benignly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt.’

“15. A similar response was also given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who proposed the doubt concerning distance in this manner: ‘In this region, by ancient custom, permission to binate is sometimes granted because of moral necessity, although the nearer parish is not distant by more than the space of half a league; it is asked whether this is rightly done?’ The Sacred Congregation responded in letters of 31 July: ‘It being premised that it belongs to the office of Bishops to take care with all their powers that the use of this faculty not be necessary in order to succor the needs of the faithful, a general practice to be observed in individual cases cannot be assigned. Therefore, in particular cases as above, a supply of priests being lacking and all other circumstances having been maturely considered, it is to be determined by the prudent judgment of the superior whether, in that case, grave circumstances of affairs concur which the Doctors teach constitute a case of necessity—as the case proposed appears to be—in which there is room for dispensation from the universal precept concerning the same priest’s repeating the Sacrifice on the same day, and for granting the faculty of binating, which he plainly perceives from the very words of the Apostolic Indult that he ought to use altogether sparingly.’ And this instruction in the same words was sent to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, in whose name various doubts concerning the repetition of Mass had been proposed; for on 28 September it was rescripted to him that, his questions having been considered, the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction was to be given which ... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg received under date of 31 July 1851.

“16. Moreover, among the various responses which remit the measurement of the gravity of causes to the judgment of the superior, some deserve particular mention. Such are those which, while following the customary rule of remitting the estimation of causes to the judgment of the superior, at the same time indicate in some manner the kind or degree of necessity which the repetition of Mass requires, and repeatedly temper to some extent the fear and alleviate the excessive anxiety of mind which those clauses by which this faculty is restricted in the Formularies had created in Bishops and missionaries. One of the responses of this kind was given in the year 1848 to a Bishop in the United States of America; for in letters given on 9 May it was thus rescripted: ‘I come to your petition concerning the manner of interpreting the necessity which is required for the lawful use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day.... Let Your Excellency therefore know that the necessity of this kind in question is understood as true indeed, but moral, and not absolute; judgment concerning it in individual cases therefore depends upon prudent judgment, the circumstances having been considered. Accordingly, you must beware of excessive anxiety in judging this matter, lest the aforesaid faculty appear to have been granted in vain or to be reduced to act in almost no case.’ More worthy of note is the declaration sent in the year 1828 to a certain Apostolic Prefect in the Antilles of America. For since he did not trust that he could tranquilly use the faculty in question because of the grave conditions by which it was constrained, he had implored from the Apostolic See a broader faculty of granting priests ... ‘that on Sundays and feasts of precept they may celebrate Mass twice, when necessity or the spiritual utility of the faithful demands it.’ A report of this matter having been made to the Supreme Pontiff on 13 April, the response was given in this manner: ‘Such is the esteem of your virtue and prudence that Our Most Holy Lord commanded that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind; and if you shall judge it necessary or exceedingly useful to the faithful that priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day, you ought not to be disturbed by the rigor of the words in which the rescript appears to be contained. Therefore, He commits it to the prudence and conscience of Your Lordship to judge concerning this necessity and the gravity of the causes, and His Holiness benignly declared that, in those circumstances, you have by the aforesaid rescript the faculty of granting priests permission to celebrate Mass twice.’

“17. The same rule of committing to the judgment or charity of the superiors of missions the application of general principles to practical cases was also observed when, in the cases themselves as they were set forth, there did not appear that force and gravity of causes—at least if these causes were considered in themselves and in the abstract—which the clauses of this faculty require. This indeed confirms that, in considering the causes which counsel the use of the faculty, great account must be taken of all the conditions and state of the faithful. An example of this matter is the response given by the Sacred Congregation in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the mission of Tripoli. Uncertain because of the clauses, he had asked ‘for precisely what number of slaves or free persons he could celebrate a second Mass, since the case sometimes occurred that, in the bath outside Tripoli, no more than ten or fifteen slaves were present at the Sacrifice ... and whether, in the absence of priests, a second Mass could be celebrated on feast days for these alone?’ Now, notwithstanding the resolution given in the same year by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition for a similar case, as was noted above in § 13, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded on 5 October: ‘Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Vice-Prefect.’ Nor ought it to seem strange that this Sacred Congregation admitted a more benign interpretation; for it concerned slaves who, because of their condition, deserved particular indulgence, since perhaps the Sacrifice of the Most Holy Mass was their sole consolation. Another argument of benignity of this kind, account having been taken of the circumstances, was furnished in the year 1860 by the Sacred Inquisition. For although on 20 June it responded to the Apostolic Vicar of a kingdom neighboring China that the desire of neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times in the year was not of itself a most urgent cause in the case in question—that is, for repeating Mass according to the faculty—it nevertheless added: ‘But, all the circumstances of places and persons having been weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Vicar.’ From these things it is gathered that those causes which are not grave in themselves and therefore in many places can become grave in other places because of the circumstances which accompany the case.

“18. These are the principles which have been kept before one’s eyes regarding the faculty of repeating Mass, and which certainly can render the Ordinaries of missions tranquil in the exercise of the same faculty. Although it is customary in this matter to defer to the wise judgment of the Ordinaries of missions, nevertheless, from what has been said thus far, it is evident with how much caution they ought to act, since their conscience always remains burdened in the legitimate exercise of an extraordinary faculty of this kind. Nevertheless, it will be helpful here that which the Sacred Congregation rescripted in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria: that the clauses employed in the Formularies are not to be understood with extreme rigor, the principle being kept before one’s eyes that the Apostolic See grants the said faculty for the spiritual good of the faithful, with the desire that all may easily fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.

“19. It now remains to speak of the rite, or of the manner in which Mass can be repeated. It was always prescribed to missionaries by the Sacred Congregation, and by Benedict XIV himself, that one who repeats Mass must not take the customary ablutions of the chalice because of the fast, so that ‘if in the first Mass, after receiving the Body and Blood, he has taken the washing, he ought not to celebrate a second Mass in the aforesaid cases’ (Council of Nemours, 1284, in Benedict XIV, On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, book 3, chapter 5, no. 4), that is, even in those cases in which the people would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrifice on feast days. And although in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in the case of Ibiza on 16 September 1815 it was prescribed that there should be only one chalice which the one celebrating two Masses ought to use, nevertheless, since the execution of a Decree of this kind was subject to no slight difficulties when celebration had to take place in two churches distant from one another, the same Sacred Congregation, in general meetings held on 12 September 1857, rescripted by way of modification of the said Decree: the use of two chalices can be permitted in the case. The Instruction which is added here, composed by command of the same Sacred Congregation of Rites, concerns the manner of purifying the chalice which served for the first Mass.

“From the offices of the said Sacred Congregation, 24 May 1870.” A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 8 ff.; vol. 6, p. 345 ff.; Lucidi, chapter 3, § 2, no. 378 ff.

“1. Is a Pastor who governs two parishes and has the faculty of celebrating twice in one day bound to apply its own Mass for each parish, even if the revenues are small? 2. Is a Pastor who by faculty celebrates twice on the same day in one and the same parish obliged to apply both Masses gratuitously for the people committed to him? 3. Are vicars and other priests who do not have the care of souls, if they sometimes by faculty celebrate twice in one day in a parish, hospital, etc., themselves also obliged to apply the second Mass gratuitously for the people committed to them? 4. Whether and in what manner is it to be granted to Pastors who celebrate twice on Sundays and other feast days that they may have the free application of one Mass and be able to receive a stipend for it?—Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Negative, with the prohibition against receiving an alms for the second Mass remaining firm.—To the third: Negative, insofar as they do not have the care of souls, the prohibition against receiving an alms for the second Mass always remaining firm.—To the fourth: Negative, and the Bishop is to provide according to the form of the Constitution Cum semper oblatas of Benedict XIV, § 8.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 September 1858; Lucidi, vol. 3, p. 380, 3rd ed.; A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 69 ff.

“1. Can a priest who, from the Statutes of the Sodality in which he enrolled, is bound to celebrate Mass for a deceased member, apply the second Mass on a day of bination in order to satisfy this burden, in the case?

“2. Can a Pastor who was unable to celebrate Mass on the day on which it was to be read for the people apply the second Mass to be celebrated by bination on the following feast in order to satisfy this burden, in the case?—Response. To the first: Affirmative; to the second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 5 March 1887.

“In the case of a repeated celebration of Mass, some remuneration in view of the labor and inconvenience can be permitted at the prudent judgment of the Bishop, every alms for the application of the Mass being excluded.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 March 1861; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 514.

"1. The faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day, with which the Holy See is accustomed to distinguish the Ordinaries of Missions, so that they themselves may communicate it to their Missionaries, has raised not a few doubts, which have been proposed to this Sacred Congregation by the same. The reason of doubts of this kind is sought from the very strictness of the clauses which, by order of Alexander VII, were added to the article of the Formulas which treats of this faculty. Wherefore it has seemed opportune, in this present Instruction, to collect the more common rules and principles which are to be had before the eyes in the use of the remembered faculty.

2. No one is ignorant that, from the general rule according to the present discipline of the Church, it is lawful for Priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice only once in the day. Thus Innocent III established: 'We respond that, except on the day of the Lord's Nativity, unless a cause of necessity should persuade, it suffices for a Priest to celebrate only one Mass in a day.' Chap. Consuluisti, On the Celebration of Masses.

3. Therefore in a case of necessity, repetition of Mass on the same day is permitted to Priests. Yet this must be understood, as is discerned from the very words of the Formulas, of permission to celebrate only two Masses, although grave causes should concur which would persuade celebrating a greater number. Once the Prefect of the Mission of the Capuchins of Tunis asked whether, on one and the same day, if necessity urged, he could celebrate more than two Masses, for this reason, that all his Missionaries had been thrown into prisons. And the general Sacred Congregation placed over the Propagation of the Faith responded on 7 August 1684: that he cannot by force of the faculties celebrate beyond two Masses. This had already been answered previously in the general Congregation held before the Most Holy Lord on 17 February 1648; for when an abuse had been set forth which had prevailed among Priests detained in captivity in Algeria, of celebrating three Masses, "the Most Holy Lord... ordered through the said Prefect (of Algeria) that it be enjoined in the name of His Holiness upon the Priests... that since the Apostolic See in the faculties of Missionaries has conceded the power or license of celebrating twice in a day where necessity has required this, henceforth they are not to celebrate beyond two Masses." The same was repeated in the years 1818 and 1820 to the Apostolic Prefect of Tunis.

4. Necessity therefore is the only title from which the faculty is made for Priests of saying two Masses. First however it is expedient to observe with Verricelli that "this necessity is not to be taken from the side of the scarcity of Priests, but from the side of the spiritual necessity of the people and the rarity of Priests." On Apostolic Missions, Tit. IV, q. 98, D. 18, n. 201. With this principle posited, it is easy to draw out certain negative rules concerning the use of the faculty of which there is question.

5. And first indeed it is evident that he would not think rightly who would say that Mass can be repeated on suppressed feast days, on which the people are not bound to hear Mass, as the Sacred Congregation warned in the year 1837 in these words: "The matter having been maturely weighed, from the words of the formula itself it appeared sufficiently clearly that the faculties cannot be extended to abrogated festivities. For since in the remembered formula it is declared that the faculty is valid if necessity urges, it follows that, from this title alone that those days were once festive, Mass cannot be celebrated twice by the same Priest."

6. Secondly. Likewise repetition of Mass is interdicted for the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private chapels. In the year 1842 the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg had narrated the custom that had grown up in his Vicariate of permitting the repetition of Mass in the camps of magnates; but since he did not think that in these circumstances there was that necessity which is required by the Formulas, he sought, both by reason of custom and by reason of the moral utility which came thence, that authority be made to him for permitting it. But the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition judged that, according to the things set forth, it was not expedient. And when the Apostolic Vicar had added that some Priests, by a faculty previously had from his Predecessor, were pursuing the repetition of Mass, the Supreme Sacred Congregation decreed that the faculty was to be revoked, insofar as the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg judged that this could prudently be done.

7. Thirdly. From Resolutions of this kind it is inferred that custom is not a sufficient title that the same Priest can offer the Holy Sacrifice twice on one and the same day. This also agrees with what Benedict XIV taught in Const. Declarasti Nobis, given on 16 March 1746 to the Bishop of Huesca in Aragon. "Only we inquire," says the Pontiff, "whether that custom has acquired for itself the character of prescription or presumption, and we judge each to be false and foreign." And as regards prescription, he says: "For if according to civil laws holy things cannot be prescribed, it is absurd from every side to assert that something has been obtained or required by prescription which is adverse to the inviolable sanctions of the universal Church, which the Council of Trent commanded all Priests to observe in the celebration of Masses." But concerning presumption he adds: "But, the other things passed over, we submit that this could be understood of those privileges which could have been granted by the Apostolic See, if someone had asked for them, but not of those things which, when they are asked for, are by custom altogether denied custom, lest presumption have more strength and weight than truth." Hence it is that, when the Sacred Congregation has known that in some place the custom of repeating Mass without necessity had grown up, it did not omit to reprove a custom of this kind as an abuse, stirring up the zeal of Bishops for eliminating it.

8. Fourthly. Nor even the poverty of Presbyters is able to prove the repetition of Mass, as has been indicated from Verricelli, loc. cit. A certain Archbishop of Ireland in the year 1688 asked: "Whether from the sole cause of poverty Regulars can celebrate two Masses on feast days in private houses, although all parishes and convents have their own churches and chapels." The Response of the Sacred Congregation was negative: and when it had been reported in particular Congregations of Propaganda Fide held both on 7 March 1743 and on 28 July 1750 that an abuse of this kind still flourished in Ireland, because many Priests were using the faculty of repeating Mass for no other cause except that they might receive richer alms, and thence sustain themselves more conveniently, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: "Let Priests be gravely warned not to abuse the faculty of celebrating twice in a day so that they may have a more ample and richer stipend." And by Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolicum Ministerium, 30 May 1753, section 11, it is called an intolerable abuse that the faculty is made for some Priest of repeating Mass to this end, that by a double alms he might sustain himself more decently. Only, that in some way it might consult for the poor Religious of that Kingdom, who had complained concerning a similar prohibition made by the provincial Synod of Tuam in the year 1817 because of the damage thence arising, the alms being taken away from them which they were accustomed to receive on the occasion of Mass at the church doors, since they themselves lived from the offerings of the faithful, the Sacred Congregation willed that Bishops be warned that "in imparting by Apostolic authority to Priests the license of celebrating two Masses on feast days of precept because of causes of necessity approved by Apostolic Constitutions, they have account of Regular Priests, and especially of those who dwell in poor monasteries." For the rest, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that "from general practice it is not conceded to Presbyters to receive an alms for the second Mass, even if the matter concerns those who, furnished with a parochial duty, cannot obtain a stipend for the first Mass because they are bound to apply it for the people," as was notified by circular letters of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide on 15 October 1863 to Ordinaries of Missions, any pretext whatever for the abuse of repeating Mass in view of a stipend has already been removed. Nevertheless, account having been had of the circumstances of certain particular Missions, the Most Holy Father deigned to make authority, as is established from the said circular Letters, for their Ordinaries of permitting "that, a just and grave cause intervening, Priests subject to them can and may receive a stipend even for a second Mass to be celebrated on the same day."

9. Fifthly. Finally it is necessary to note that repetition of Mass is interdicted to a Priest whenever another Priest can be had who can satisfy the necessity of the people, as Benedict XIV expressly teaches in the cited Constitution Declarasti Nobis. And hence it is that, before repetition of Mass is admitted, it must be seen whether some remedy from those constituted by law is at hand for providing for the spiritual necessity of the people; and first the Parish Priest himself is bound to supply a stipend to another Priest; but his inability being posited, the people are bound; and finally, if neither could the people be compelled to this on account of poverty, the Ordinary would be bound to supply. Benedict XIV, loc. cit.; Vote of Cardinal Zelada, Thesaur. Resolutionum, T. 37, in the cause of Derthusen, 26 Aug. 1768.

10. Thus far concerning cases in which repetition of Mass is prohibited. As regards the cases in which the necessity required for this concurs, these are found set forth in Const. Declarasti Nobis. In this Constitution there is first considered, according to the unanimous consent of Theologians, that repetition of Mass is permitted to the Priest "who obtains two parishes, or two peoples so separated that one of them can in no way be present for the Parish Priest celebrating on feast days because of the very great distance of places." And this is the first and more common case; the other, which is there recounted, is "when there is only one church in which Mass is celebrated, and to which the whole people together cannot come."

11. In these cases Mass can be repeated even by those who are not endowed with the faculty through the Formulas which are customarily conceded through the Sacred Congregation placed over the Propagation of the Faith, since common law itself concedes this, always nevertheless dependently on the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to pass sentence both concerning true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying canonical remedies (section 9). In reality, these means having been indicated, Benedict XIV adds: "The things said thus far rest also on general canonical sanctions." Indeed, the opinion of Theologians is concordant, as Benedict XIV himself also observes, that in the case of one Parish Priest with two parishes, "the Parish Priest not only can, but plainly is bound to celebrate Mass twice on the same day." De Syn. Dioec., bk. 6, ch. 8, n. 2. From these things it easily follows that the article of the Formulas, since it is facultative, is extended also to other cases of necessity not considered in common law; for otherwise that article would become useless, at least for those places in which parishes are canonically erected, with common law itself disposing for these parishes. This agrees with what Benedict XIV teaches in the work De Sacros. Missae Sacrificio, bk. 3, ch. 5, n. 4, in which, after he had asserted that "the case which truly occurs is that when a Parish Priest has two parishes," etc., he proceeds in these words: "Nor nevertheless do we will anything prejudged concerning other cases which occur in Missions, for which provision has been made by conceding to Missionaries the faculty of celebrating Mass several times on the same day; likewise concerning other cases in which either because of the distance of places, or because of the fewness of Priests, or the persecution of infidels, lest the faithful lack Mass, it is necessary that two Masses be celebrated by Priests." And concerning causes of this kind indeed, which have place in Missions, for which the faculty is given to Superiors of Missions, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide was speaking in the year 1832, when it gave an opportune warning to a certain Philippopolitan Missionary, who was not repeating Masses although he presided over various Christian communities. Namely, Mass repetition having been enjoined upon him, even from the mandate of the general Congregation, it was added: "But if you ask why those clauses of rigor are added to the faculty of repeating Mass in the formula of the Indult, you will find the response in the formula itself; for you will observe that the Indult is not restricted to the needs of the people on feast days; but since it is contained in general terms, it also comprehends other cases concerning which there is question, as would be the necessity of administering Viaticum to the sick in each parish, and in other cases of this kind the prescribed cautions ought to have place."

12. And in cases of this kind, namely less frequent ones, in the use of this faculty Bishops and Missionaries have repeatedly seemed to hesitate, doubting especially concerning the sufficiency of causes which would be required according to the clauses added to the faculty. But truly the cases which can happen in Missions in this matter are so many and so various that they can hardly be foreseen easily, and much less reduced to determined rules; for judgment concerning them can vary according to the diverse concurrent circumstances of places, times, and persons. This is the reason why the resolution of particular doubts which have been proposed concerning this matter has for the most part been remitted to the prudent judgment of the Superior of the Mission.

13. And first indeed a rule was often requested concerning the number of the faithful which would be enough that Mass could be repeated. In the Constitution Apostolicum Ministerium issued for England, it is said that a faculty of this kind can be employed "when the number of those who on feast days are bound to assist at Sacred things exhibits such necessity that unless power of celebrating two Masses on the same day is conceded to some Priest, many would not satisfy the command of the Church." Yet a general norm of this kind does not remove every doubt concerning the number necessary for repetition. The same can be said concerning a certain negative response of the Holy Inquisition given in the year 1688 to Capuchin Missionaries in Greece. These had asked: "Whether a Missionary Priest, dwelling alone in a place, could celebrate two Masses on Sundays and feast days for fifteen or twenty persons who, legitimately impeded, were not able to be present at the first Mass;" and the Supreme Holy Inquisition on 28 January of the same year decreed: it is not lawful. But if the number of twenty faithful is not judged enough for Mass to be repeated, it can further be asked what minimum number suffices.

14. But concerning a doubt of this kind, as concerning those things which regard distance, the Sacred Congregation has had it in custom that these things are to be resolved by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries of Missions on whom the faculty depends; for they themselves in the places in which they dwell can rightly estimate the circumstances concurring in individual cases. And indeed as far back as the year 1688, the Prefect of the Mission of Tunis in Mauritania generally asked that it be declared what number of faithful there ought to be who would be deprived of Mass, so that Mass could be repeated; and the General Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide on 16 November responded: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Prefect. Similarly the Bishop of St. Louis in the United States of America in the year 1828, having set forth his own fear and that of other Bishops of burdening their own conscience because of the clauses of the formulas, asked: "Whether whenever thirty or fifty faithful are exposed to the danger of not hearing Mass of precept, they may celebrate twice." But by order of Leo XII, by letters given on 13 March, it was rescripted: "You ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind, and, without being moved by the rigor of the words, He (His Holiness) commits it to your conscience and prudence that you judge in which cases, with account had of the circumstances of your diocese, grave causes are to be judged present for imparting to Priests the faculty of which there is question. But where you shall have judged these causes grave according to your conscience and prudence, His Holiness kindly declared that you can use that faculty without any doubt."

15. A similar response also was given in the year 1851 to the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg, who had proposed a doubt about distance thus: "In this region by ancient custom a license of binating is sometimes conceded because of moral necessity, although the nearer parish is not distant beyond the space of half a league; it is asked whether rightly?" The Sacred Congregation responded by letters of 31 July: It being premised that it is the duty of Bishops, according to their powers, to take care that there be no need to use this faculty for relieving the necessities of the faithful, a general practice to be observed in individual cases cannot be assigned. Wherefore in particular cases as above, the supply of Presbyters being lacking, and all other circumstances maturely weighed, it must be defined by the prudent judgment of the Superior whether in that case there concur grave circumstances of things, which Doctors hand down as effecting a case of necessity (as the proposed one seems), in which there is place for dispensation from the universal precept concerning the repetition of the Sacrifice by the same Presbyter on the same day, and for the faculty of binating to be bestowed; which, from the words of the Apostolic Indult itself, it is especially clear that he ought to use altogether sparingly. And this instruction was sent in the same words to the Bishop of Trier in the year 1853, in whose name various doubts concerning repetition of Mass had been proposed; for it was rescripted to him on 28 September that, his questions having been considered, the Sacred Congregation judged that the instruction should be given which... the Apostolic Vicar of Limburg obtained under the day 31 July in the year 1851.

16. For the rest, among various responses which remit to the judgment of the Superior the measuring of the gravity of causes, some deserve particular mention; of this kind are those which, while they follow the customary rule of remitting to the Superior's judgment the estimation of causes, at the same time indicate in some manner the kind or degree of necessity which repetition of Mass demands, and repeatedly temper somewhat the fear and soften the excessive anxiety of mind which those clauses had created for Bishops and Missionaries, by which this faculty is restricted in the Formulas. One of responses of this kind was given in the year 1848 to a Bishop in the United States of America; for by letters given on 9 May it was rescripted thus: I come to your request concerning the mode of interpreting the necessity which is required for the lawful use of the faculty of celebrating Mass twice in a day.... Let Your Amplitude therefore know that necessity of this kind, concerning which the discourse is, is indeed true, but is understood as moral; not however absolute, concerning which therefore to judge in individual cases depends on prudent judgment, after the circumstances have been inspected.

Therefore you must beware in this matter of excessive anxiety in judging, lest the aforesaid faculty seem to have been conceded in vain or to have to be reduced to act in almost no case. More worthy of note is the declaration which was sent in the year 1828 to a certain Apostolic Prefect in the Antilles of America. For since he did not trust that he could tranquilly use the faculty concerning which there is question, because of the grave conditions by which it is constrained, he had implored a more ample faculty from the Apostolic See of making provision for Presbyters... that on Sundays and feasts of precept they can celebrate Mass twice, when necessity or the spiritual utility of the faithful demands it. A report of this matter having been made to the Supreme Pontiff on 13 April, response was made in this way: Such is the estimation of your virtue and prudence, that Our Most Holy Lord ordered that you ought to lay aside every anxiety of mind; and if you shall have judged it to be necessary, or vehemently useful to the faithful, that Priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day, you ought not to be moved by the rigor of the words by which the rescript seems to be contained. Therefore His Holiness commits to the prudence and conscience of Your Lordship to judge concerning that necessity and the gravity of causes; and in these circumstances, he kindly declared that you have the faculty, through the remembered Rescript, of making provision for Priests that they celebrate Mass twice.

17. The same rule, of committing to the judgment or charity of Superiors of Missions the application of general principles to practical cases, has also been observed when in the cases themselves, as they were set forth, there did not appear that force and gravity of causes (at least if these causes were considered in themselves and in the abstract) which the clauses of this faculty require; this indeed confirms that, in considering causes which may persuade the use of the faculty, great account must be had of all the conditions and state of the faithful. An argument of this matter is the response given by the S. C. in the year 1688 to the Vice-Prefect of the Tripolitan Mission. This man, uncertain because of the clauses, had asked "for what number of slaves or free persons he could precisely celebrate a second Mass, since sometimes the case was given that in the bath outside Tripoli not more than ten or fifteen slaves present at the Sacrifice were present... and whether, in the lack of Presbyters, for those alone a second Mass could be celebrated on feast days." Now indeed, although the Resolution given in the same year by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition for a similar case did not stand in the way, as was noted above in section 13, the Sacred Congregation placed over Propaganda Fide on 5 October responded: Let it be left to the charity and conscience of the Father Vice-Prefect. Nor should it be marvelous if this Sacred Congregation indulged a more benign interpretation; for the matter concerned slaves, who, because of their own condition, deserved peculiar indulgence, since the one consolation perhaps for them was the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Another argument of this kind of benignity, with account had of circumstances, was supplied by the Holy Inquisition in the year 1860; for although on 20 June it responded to the Apostolic Vicar of the same Kingdom adjacent to China that the desire of Neophytes wishing to receive the Most Holy Eucharist twice or three times in the year was not of itself a most urgent cause in the case concerning which there is question, that is, of repeating Mass according to the faculty; nevertheless it added: but, all the circumstances of places and persons having been weighed, it is to be left to the judgment of the Reverend Father Lord Vicar Apostolic. From these things it is drawn out that those causes which of themselves and therefore in many places are not grave can become grave in other places because of the circumstances which accompany the case.

18. These are the principles which have been had before the eyes as regards the faculty of repeating Mass, and which indeed will be able to render Ordinaries of Missions tranquil in the exercise of the same faculty. But although in this matter deference is customarily made to the wise judgment of Ordinaries of Missions, nevertheless from the things said thus far it appears with how much caution they ought to use it, since their conscience always remains burdened in the legitimate exercise of an extraordinary faculty of this kind. Nevertheless here there will help what the Sacred Congregation rescripted in the year 1832 to the Bishop of Nicopolis in Bulgaria: that the clauses employed in the Formulas are not to be understood in the extreme rigor, with the principle kept before the eyes that the Apostolic See concedes the said faculty for the spiritual good of the faithful, with the desire that all may easily fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.

19. It remains now to speak concerning the rite or the mode by which Mass can be repeated. It has always been prescribed by the Sacred Congregation to Missionaries, and by Benedict XIV himself, that he who repeats Mass ought not to take the customary ablutions of the chalice because of the fast, so that, "if in the first Mass after the reception of the Body and Blood he has accepted the pouring in, he ought not to celebrate a second Mass in the aforesaid cases" (Council of Nimes, 1284, at Benedict XIV, De SS. Sacrif. Miss., bk. 3, ch. 5, n. 4), that is, even in those cases in which the people would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrifice on feast days. But although in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Sacred Rites in the Ebusitan case on 16 September 1815 it had been prescribed that there be only one chalice which he ought to use who celebrates two Masses, nevertheless, since the execution of a Decree of this kind was subject to difficulties by no means light when celebration had to be done in two churches remote from each other, the same Sacred Order in general assemblies held on 12 September 1857 rescripted, for the moderation of the said Decree: that the use of two chalices can be permitted in the case. The Instruction which is added here, drawn up by order of the same Sacred Congregation of Sacred Rites, regards the mode of purifying the chalice which will have served for the first Mass.

From the buildings of the said Sacred Congregation, 24 May 1870." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 8 ff.; Vol. 6, p. 345 ff.; Lucidi, ch. 3, sec. 2, n. 378 ff.

"1. Whether a Parish Priest who rules two Parishes, and has the faculty of celebrating twice in the day, is bound to apply his Mass to each Parish, even if the revenues are slight? 2. Whether a Parish Priest who in the same Parish by faculty celebrates twice on the same day ought to apply each Mass gratis? 3. Whether vicars and other priests not having care of souls, if ever by faculty they celebrate twice in the day in a Parish, hospitals, etc., ought to apply gratis? He responded: to the 1st, affirmatively; to the 2nd, negatively, the prohibition of receiving an alms for the second Mass remaining firm; to the 3rd, negatively, insofar as they do not have care of souls, the prohibition of receiving an alms for the second Mass always remaining firm." S. C. C. 25 Sept. 1858. Lucidi, Vol. 3, p. 380, 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 69 ff.

"That some remuneration can be permitted (in the case of repeated celebration of Mass) by the prudent judgment of the Bishop in view of labor and inconvenience, any alms whatever for the application of the Mass being excluded." S. C. C. 23 March 1861.

— The principle concerning the day is that Mass can be celebrated on all days which are not excluded by the proper rite of the priest.

Now, in the Latin rite, Mass is prohibited under grave obligation on Friday in Parasceve; and, in itself, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord and on Holy Saturday, only the Mass is permitted which is joined to the divine office.

On Thursday indeed, so that, in imitation of the Supper of the Lord, clerics may communicate by the hand of the Pastor; on Friday and Saturday, because in the Latin rite both are aliturgical days. In the Ruthenian rite, Mass is celebrated on Friday in Parasceve if it falls on the feast of the Annunciation. In the Armenian rite all celebrate on Holy Saturday.

But the functions of Holy Week can, with the bishop assenting, be carried out in smaller parishes without chant according to the form of the Ritual of Benedict XIII; which form, also from apostolic indult, local Ordinaries can concede to pious communities.

— Besides, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, if a feast of precept falls, the bishop must take care that so many Masses be said in churches as suffice for the people to be able to satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite. When the obligation of the feast has been suppressed, the reason for celebrating several sacred rites fails; but legitimate custom, which in this liturgical matter is not required to be centenary, since the Code does not treat of liturgical laws, can be more benign and can be observed (cf. Noldin, III, 200, 3).

In parochial churches in which the functions of the Sacred Triduum cannot be done, the pastor, from license of the bishop, can read a private Mass before the solemnities of the cathedral church. The license in itself would have to be sought each year; but not rarely, from custom, celebration is made without express license (Noldin, III, 200, 1). It is also at the judgment of the bishop that in parochial churches a private Mass be celebrated before the solemn one for the sick who cannot be present at the solemn Mass. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 27, 1773. Noldin, l. c., again concedes that the necessity of seeking permission can be removed by custom.

If in a church of regulars the accustomed functions are not done, the regular Superior can, in a private oratory, or if such an oratory is lacking, in the church with doors closed, celebrate privately so that he may communicate his own (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 287, note). And even where the functions are done, one Mass for the sick can likewise be read, from the privilege of the Society of Jesus.

From cc. 239, 4°, and 349, §1, 1°, Cardinals and bishops, unless they must celebrate in the cathedral, can celebrate Mass in the Supper of the Lord or permit another to celebrate one Mass before them.

The Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate can permit one read Mass in public oratories on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord; the Vicar and Prefect Apostolic can do so also on Holy Saturday.

By special indult, a private Mass is conceded to several communities.

On Holy Saturday, nothing is permitted except the Mass joined to the functions of the Sacred Triduum, so that a separated Mass is very rarely conceded.

But the function of Holy Saturday can be omitted, although the functions on Thursday and Friday have been had (Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 9, 1899, n. 4049). Can the function of Holy Saturday alone be celebrated? Nothing has been declared concerning this matter; we think it can probably be done.

— On the Hour. On days on which it is lawful to celebrate, Mass cannot be begun earlier than one hour before dawn, or later than one hour after noon (c. 821, §1). This time in itself is ordinary, with the faculty made of following local time, true, mean, or extraordinary, from c. 33. For our sacrifice is in itself morning. If legal time is assumed, legal dawn also will be that which differs from true dawn as the legal hour differs from the true hour.

The rubric of the Missal §15 permitted Mass only from dawn to noon, which was understood in such a way that it could be begun twenty minutes before dawn, but finished twenty minutes after noon.

The tables attached to calendars indicate dawn, which begins almost when the sun has reached about the eighteenth degree below the horizon, and in winter is drawn out longer. In Rome dawn is on January 1 at 5:45; March 8 at 4:45; April 9 at 3:45; May 10 at 2:35; July 29 at 3; September 6 at 4; October 28 at 5. But many regions exist where, through part of the year, dawn does not cease, for example in Belgium from May 26 to July 19; others, where for days, weeks, and months the sun does not set. But the same regions again have a longer, indeed perpetual, night to be endured through the other part of the year.

When there is perpetual day or dawn, it is fitting at least to take care of this, that Mass be distant from the last meal by the space of some hours, for example four. But when there are longer darknesses, from a response of the Holy See it seems that the time at which men are accustomed to rise at daybreak for works can be taken morally for dawn. Indeed it seems to have been conceded that Roman hours may be assumed. Cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, November 2, 1534 (n. 614), and February 6, 1858 (A. S. S., III, 602 and VII, p. 400 note, where the vote of Fr. Secchi is had).⁽¹⁾

That time is to be observed under grave sin, and indeed in such a way that greater anticipation is more strictly forbidden than delay. Grave matter, from the more common opinion, is understood as a space of one hour, so that he would sin gravely who, without just cause, had already completed Mass two hours before dawn, or had begun it after the second hour after noon. We judge this true if it is done habitually, because one acting thus seems, as it were, to usurp a privilege.

From observing the time there excuses: a) necessity, for example, of giving Viaticum to one dying: then already at midnight it is lawful to celebrate; b) a reasonable custom, so that workers and servants, even on a weekday, can hear the sacred rite; c) a reasonable cause of delaying beyond the first hour, as if a traveling priest on a feast day could not celebrate earlier; in such a case they permit a delay of one hour, and Noldin, III, 204, concedes something beyond; or if because of an overly prolonged procession, sermon, or even solemn Mass, it is to be feared that part of the people will lack Mass on a feast day unless a private Mass is joined afterward: then they concede two hours, nor do we see why as much as necessity demands could not be conceded; or if a nuptial Mass is to be celebrated and the spouses had to be awaited, for example because of the civil ceremony; d) dispensation of the Ordinary, whether of places or proper, from whom they judge that even without privilege one hour can be conceded.⁽²⁾

Regulars and religious are not rarely given a privilege in this matter. Thus to the Congregation of Purity, it was conceded by Pius VI that everywhere they could celebrate two hours before dawn or after noon.

To missionaries of the Society of Jesus a faculty can be made by the Father General that, whether because of travel or devotion, they may celebrate two hours after midnight. But Alexander VI conceded to the Benedictine Fathers the privilege that, during the whole time of the year, they could celebrate Mass two hours after midnight. St. Alphonsus, VI, 342, thinks that this privilege has been revoked. Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 1050, think diversely. Moreover, these privileges through communication, which probably still endures in already acquired effects, have been made common to very many regulars and to some congregations.

⁽¹⁾ The response is "according to the vote of Fr. Secchi." A. S. S., VII, p. 400, says his opinion is reduced to this, that "with the distribution of hours according to the Roman method retained, noon would have to be determined by the passage of the sun on the local meridian."

⁽²⁾ By force of the faculties of Propaganda Fide, celebration can be permitted, in a case of necessity, from one hour after midnight; but Nuncios or Apostolic Delegates can permit celebration from the third hour after midnight for a reasonable cause.

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

The Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 2, 1883 ad X (n. 3577), denied that this Mass can be begun before midnight. Chant is not required by the canon. Can communion be furnished to those present in that Mass? Before the Code, this was denied several times by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (cf. Gasparri, De Euch., II, 1901), and from the manner in which in c. 821, in §3, the faculty of communicating the faithful is expressly conceded, which in §2 is passed over in silence, you might say that the same still holds. The Commission for the Interpretation of the Code very recently admitted the more benign opinion, which, relying on the general words of cc. 846, §1 and 867, §4, inculcates this principle agreeable to the liturgy: when the sacrifice of the Mass is permitted, communion of the faithful present is also permitted in itself.

But in other churches, that is, those which are not parochial or conventual, nothing in itself is permitted without indult. By special law, the public parochial Mass itself is sometimes prohibited.

— "Nevertheless in all religious or pious houses having an oratory with the faculty of habitually reserving the Most Holy Eucharist, on the night of the Nativity of the Lord one priest can celebrate three ritual Masses, or, with the things to be observed being observed, only one which may avail for all present also for satisfying the precept, and administer Holy Communion to those asking" (c. 821, §3).

Pious houses are those which are devoted to a pious end of charity or beneficence. Such also, from the mind of the Church, is judged a prison, insofar as in it chaplains give labor to the amendment of offenders.

Observe that the faculty is circumscribed to one priest. But from the authentic declaration of the Holy Office, November 26, 1908, these Masses cannot be celebrated with the doors of the oratory open or in churches which serve the public use of the faithful people. We have interpreted this in such a way that nevertheless it would be lawful, with doors closed, to celebrate these Masses in the church of religious, if not any people whatever, but only selected faithful, were admitted (cf. Periodica, IV, 311).

Cardinals from c. 239, §1, 4°, and bishops, even titular ones, who do not have to celebrate in the cathedral church, from c. 349, §1, 7°, can themselves celebrate three Masses on the night of the Nativity of the Lord, or permit another to celebrate the same before them. By force of the faculties of Propaganda Fide, three Masses with distribution of Holy Communion can be permitted in the churches of their territory by Vicars and Prefects Apostolic.

The time of celebration is determined by ecclesiastical law both as regards the days and as regards the hours. It is indeed lawful to celebrate Mass daily, but by Latin ecclesiastical law private Masses are prohibited on the last three days of Holy Week. On the other hand, several Masses are sometimes also permitted to be said on one day. For the sake of clarity, it is useful to treat separately: 1. Masses during the last three days of Holy Week; 2. several Masses to be said on the same day; 3. the hour at which Mass is to be celebrated.

281. On Holy Thursday private Masses are generally forbidden; one solemn Mass, however, is to be celebrated in all cathedral, collegiate, and parish churches. By indult it is not rarely granted that a solemn Mass also be said in public or semipublic oratories in which the Most Holy Eucharist is habitually reserved. The bishop can grant that parish or quasi-parish churches which do not have three clerics celebrate only a read Mass.⁴²¹

In some dioceses bishops permit that, not only in parish churches but also in others, for example, churches of seminaries, religious, etc., one Mass be read before the solemn Mass for the convenience of the people. But the bishop cannot grant a faculty of this kind by his own authority; either legitimate custom or an apostolic indult must be added. For the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of March 27, 1773, is no longer found in the authentic collection of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and accordingly is considered abolished. A fortiori, the opinion formerly defended by several grave authors, asserting that according to the Latin rite private Masses are not absolutely prohibited either on Holy Thursday or on Holy Saturday, must be rejected.⁴²²

On Holy Thursday, with the permission at least of the bishop, it is lawful to sing Mass in non-parish churches, even though the Mass of the Presanctified is not celebrated in those same churches.⁴²³ In this case the consecration of the other Host and the procession are to be omitted. In parish churches, however, all the liturgical rites prescribed for these three days must be performed, at least according to the small Ritual of Benedict XIII. Nevertheless, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on December 9, 1899, replied to the question, "Whether on Holy Thursday in parish and other non-parish churches a read Mass with singing can be celebrated without the functions of Good Friday and Holy Saturday being performed?": "In parish churches where there is a baptismal font, let the rubrics of the Missal and the decrees be observed.... In other non-parish churches, however, the function of Holy Saturday can be omitted, but not that of Good Friday; and let the Sepulcher be made." This response cannot be reconciled so easily with the response of the same Congregation of February 1, 1895. Perhaps it must be said that this latter decision regards a particular case. Hence in practice the Mass of the Presanctified is to be said in all churches in which Mass was held on Holy Thursday. Nevertheless, regular superiors who do not perform the solemn functions on these three days can celebrate a private Mass on Holy Thursday to furnish Holy Communion to their subjects, but in the domestic chapel or, if this is lacking, in the church with the doors closed.⁴²⁴

If some feast of precept, for example, St. Joseph, falls on Holy Thursday, the bishop must take care that as many Masses be said in the churches as suffice for the people to be able to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass.⁴²⁵ This by no means applies, however, if such feasts either are no longer of precept or are transferred to another day.⁴²⁶ All bishops and Cardinals who on Holy Thursday do not say the solemn Mass in their cathedral can say a private Mass in their domestic oratory or permit another priest to celebrate Mass before them.⁴²⁷

⁴²¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 28 (31), 1821 (Decr. auth., n. 2616 ad 1). Cf. Gasparri, De euchar. I, n. 81.

⁴²² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 350, who says that private Masses are altogether unlawful on these days.

⁴²³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 1, 1895 (Decr. auth., n. 3842 ad 2).

⁴²⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1839.

⁴²⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 12, 1716.

⁴²⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 27, 1868.

⁴²⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 349, § 1, n. 1; c. 239, § 1, n. 4.

282. Good Friday is called an aliturgical day, because, except in a case of grave necessity to consecrate a Host for administering Viaticum, no Mass can be celebrated. In such a case of necessity, the votive Mass of the Passion of the Lord is to be said; but this case can scarcely occur in our times, since particles for administering Viaticum are always reserved. When, however, some feast, for example, the feast of the principal patron which is of precept, falls on Good Friday or Holy Saturday, particular laws must be attended to.

The so-called Mass of the Presanctified, which is customarily celebrated on this day, is not a true Mass, since consecration is lacking; accordingly, no stipend can be accepted, nor are the faithful bound to assist, even if on this day a feast of precept from particular law occurs.

283. On Holy Saturday, private Masses separated from the other liturgical functions are prohibited much more strictly than on Holy Thursday. Accordingly, either a special pontifical indult or the necessity of confecting Viaticum is required for saying a private Mass. In parish churches in which there is a baptismal font, the Mass and the other functions must be performed; in other churches, however, they can be omitted, even if the sacred functions were held on Thursday and Friday.⁴²⁸ On Holy Saturday, Holy Communion can be distributed to the faithful not only immediately after the completion of Mass, but also amid the solemnities of the Mass.⁴²⁹ Concerning the distribution of Holy Communion on Good Friday by particular law, see what we said above in n. 220.

⁴²⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 9, 1903, ad 1 (Decr. auth., n. 4049).

⁴²⁹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, April 28, 1914 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis VI, 197); Code of Canon Law, c. 867, § 3.

1623. Principles. I. TO CELEBRATE DAILY is licit and laudable, unless a special prohibition of the Church obstructs. - For "in the celebration of this mystery there is attended the representation of the Lord's Passion and the participation of its fruit; and according to each it was fitting to determine a time suitable for the celebration of this Sacrament. For because we need the fruit of the Lord's Passion daily, on account of daily defects, the Sacrament is offered daily in the Church regularly."²⁰

It was said unless a special prohibition of the Church obstructs. Now, a prohibition of this kind obstructs on the last three days of Greater Week, namely:

1. On THURSDAY in the Supper of the Lord, private Masses are prohibited.²¹

We say private Masses, for in individual churches, the solemn Mass to be celebrated by the rector of the church, or by one performing his functions, is admitted. - And here one must remember what the S. R. C. established, saying: "the rule prescribed in the Ceremonial Book is to be observed, which is conformable to the custom of the universal Church: namely that on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, in memory that Our Lord Jesus Christ communicated the Apostles by His own hand, all presbyters, both Dignitaries and Canons, and any others from the body of the church,²² receive Communion from the hand of the Bishop or of another celebrating."²³

Let the following things be noted: 1. The prohibition of celebrating, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, other Masses besides the solemn one suffers the following exceptions: 1. In smaller churches where the sacred functions of Greater Week cannot be solemnly performed, let rectors of churches strive to perform them, with the form of the small Ritual issued by order of Benedict XIII observed; with respect to other parishes which are destitute of clerics, the Ordinaries of places are able to indulge, for the convenience of the people, that pastors, with permission sought yearly, can celebrate a read Mass.²⁴ 2. For the convenience of the sick, the Bishop can concede that in the church, not in the private chapel of the hospital, one private Mass, besides the solemn one, be celebrated.²⁵ 3. A regular Superior can celebrate Mass privately in a private Oratory, for ministering Communion to Religious, and if the oratory is lacking, let this be done in the church, with the doors closed.²⁶

2. If on this day a Feast of precept occurs, for example of St. Joseph or the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, provision is to be made by the Ordinaries of places that on that day, according to the number of Christ's faithful, several private Masses be celebrated before the solemn Mass.²⁷ But the Masses to be said are of the solemnity of the day with Gloria and Credo, not of the feast, concerning which nothing is made.²⁸

3. But if the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary falls on Parasceve or on Holy Saturday, it ought, together with the precept of hearing Mass and abstaining from works, to be transferred in the universal Church to Monday after Low Sunday.²⁹

2. On FRIDAY of Greater Week, namely the day of Parasceve, the prohibition of the Church is absolute. On this day all priests must abstain from celebrating, and indeed under grave obligation, even if celebration would have to be made for furnishing Viaticum to a dying person. It is clear from the Rubric of the Missal and from Can. Sabbato 13, Dist. 3, de Consecr. The reason is that on that day, the Passion of the Lord is recalled by the Church as really enacted,¹ and therefore it is not represented mystically through the consecration of the Eucharist.

3. As regards HOLY SATURDAY, only the solemn Mass is permitted, and in smaller churches a read Mass, with the form of the small Ritual of Benedict XIII observed. But private Masses are altogether prohibited, in whatever churches and private oratories, notwithstanding any contrary custom whatever.

1624. II. Private Masses can be said at any HOUR, from dawn until noon. - Thus the Rubric of the Missal,² which also prescribes the time at which the conventual and solemn Mass is to be celebrated. But DAWN begins when the first brightness is spread over the earth, or from the beginning of light, which is various according to various places and times of the year. Let attention be given to the tables which are customarily appended to the directory of the divine Office. In regions where dawn is not had, the Rubric is understood "concerning the time which is equivalent and corresponds to dawn, that is, concerning the beginning of the civil, moral, and usual day, in which men are accustomed to rise at daybreak for works, according to the received and approved customs of the regions."³ - Moreover, in every region, the time both of dawn and of noon must be taken not mathematically, but morally, and "Benedict XIII agreed that a breadth of a third part of an hour can be tolerated, both before dawn, for Masses to be begun, and after noon," for them to be completed.⁴

The prohibition of celebrating before dawn and after noon obliges under grave sin in grave matter. It is clear from Trent,⁵ prescribing "that Ordinaries... by edict and proposed penalties should take care lest priests celebrate at hours other than the due hours." But grave matter would be to begin Mass an entire hour before dawn, that is, before the time at which, from the decree of Benedict XIII, it is licit to begin it, or an entire hour after noon. Short of an hour, the matter would be only light.

1625. From the aforesaid law various CAUSES can excuse, namely:

1. Exception of law, by which the solemn Mass of the Nativity of the Lord can be celebrated at midnight. Nor indeed is it licit on this night to celebrate successively two other Masses, nor to offer Holy Communion to the Faithful. Thus the S. R. C., April 28, 1703, in Savonen.; in Pisauren., April 20, 1641, etc.⁶ Indeed, as an abuse there was proscribed on September 18, 1781,⁷ the custom by force of which any priest whatever, without Apostolic Indult, would celebrate Mass before dawn on the night of the Nativity. Yet this is conceded to Bishops, that in public oratories or chapels they can tolerate one Mass, even without chant, according to the custom of the region. Thus it is gathered from the response of the S. R. C., September 7, 1850.⁸

2. Apostolic privilege or Indult, conceded after the Council of Trent, by force of which it is licit for privileged persons to celebrate, for example, one hour before dawn or after noon; which ought to be understood of one hour before or after the time assigned for others not privileged; otherwise the privilege would profit little.⁹

3. Necessity, for example that Viaticum be furnished to one dying, in which case it would be licit to celebrate even at midnight.

4. A reasonable cause, for example that workmen and servants may be able to hear Mass very early in the morning. - Whence, if on a feast day the solemn Mass is prolonged rather far, a private Mass can be said one hour and more after noon; and probably also two hours, at least with the license of the Bishop, lest namely a great part of the people lack Mass. Likewise, from the cause of a journey, or of the funeral of some magnate, or of a sermon, or of Ordinations, it would be licit to celebrate Mass one hour after noon, or before dawn.¹⁰

5. Dispensation; for the Bishop can dispense in some particular case, from a reasonable cause. And all religious Superiors have power in this same faculty toward their subjects, since they are their Ordinaries.¹¹ - But Paul III admonishes: "Let them use sparingly any Indult whatever of celebrating, or causing to be celebrated, before day; because, since in the ministry of the altar Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is the brightness of eternal light, is immolated, it is fitting that this be done not in the darkness of night, but in the light."¹²

It is asked: Whether and what sort of sin it is to celebrate Mass before the recitation of Matins?

Resp. 1. If it concerns private celebration, several authors with St. Antoninus say it is mortal; others with Tamburini and Holzmann recognize no fault in this. But more commonly and more probably others with Benedict XIV¹³ teach that it is by no means mortal, both because it is not a necessary disposition for celebrating, and because an obligation of this kind is neither expressed in the Rubric nor commonly received. But they think it is not excused from venial fault, because in the Rubric this is now numbered among defects, and therefore it cannot be said to be of mere counsel. But any moderate reasonable cause excuses, as study, a journey, the will of the Superior, the expectation of the people, etc.¹⁴

Resp. 2. If it concerns a conventual and solemn Mass, authors "commonly and more truly affirm that it is mortal, unless a just cause intervenes, and a grave and public one, and without scandal. The reason is that such is the custom received in all churches where public prayers are said; so that, by acting otherwise, the public worship of God, the common good, and the suitable governance of the Church would be gravely injured."¹⁵

1626. III. It is licit to celebrate only ONCE in a day. In antiquity it was indeed licit to perform the Mass several times on the same day, but for many centuries now this has been prohibited under grave obligation. "Except on the day of the Lord's Nativity," says Innocent III,¹⁶ "unless a necessary cause suggests, it suffices for a priest, once in the day, to celebrate only one Mass."

There is excepted 1. The Day of the Nativity of the Lord. For on this Feast it is licit for any priest to celebrate three Masses, but the pastor is held to apply only one for the people (cf. n. 1609, q. 4). 2. A case of necessity: if indeed a great part of the people, on a Sunday or Feast of precept, would lack Mass, the priest can, with the license of the Bishop, celebrate twice. We say with the license of the Bishop, "to whose judgment it is left to determine whether a just and true reason of necessity intervenes in particular cases. Nor is it right for this faculty to be imparted indiscriminately to Bishops, but only on account of a true cause of necessity in a particular case."¹⁷ But if there seems to be a grave cause of BINATING, concerning which nevertheless it is not clear whether it is canonical or not, the mind and practice of the Holy See is that Bishops have recourse to it; namely when it concerns license to be conceded not for an act, but to be valid for a longer span of time. But if a sudden case occurs, in which recourse to the Bishop is not easy, his license can be presumed.¹⁸

It is asked: When is NECESSITY judged to be present for celebrating twice?

Resp. From the common opinion of theologians, this necessity is present in a threefold case. - 1. If some presbyter has two parishes, and the people cannot come together into either parish. 2. If some presbyter, although he does not have two parishes, nevertheless rules two peoples so distant from each other that one of them cannot stand by while he celebrates, while it could easily come together in some chapel.¹⁹ 3. If all parishioners cannot at the same time come together for one Mass, whether on account of the narrowness of the church, or on account of the distance of places, Mass can be repeated in the same church.²⁰

Therefore, these and similar circumstances occurring, another priest who can offer another Sacrifice being altogether lacking, there will be present a legitimate necessity of repeating the Sacrifice. Otherwise, however, any other cause being removed, such as scarcity of the priest, or the convenience of those who would wish to satisfy the precept of hearing Mass in their private chapels, or even very ancient custom which sometimes could be adduced, etc., it is not licit for a priest to repeat the Sacrifice.²¹

NB. Concerning the rite to be observed in the repetition of Mass, see the Appendix to the Roman Ritual.

1627. Principles. I. By common and ordinary law, it is not licit to celebrate Mass except in CHURCHES, or in ORATORIES deputed to divine worship by the Bishop. - This is clear from Trent,²² prescribing: "Let Bishops not suffer that this holy Sacrifice be performed by any seculars or regulars whatever in private houses, and altogether outside the church and oratories dedicated only to divine worship, to be designated and visited by the same Ordinaries." That this Tridentine precept obliges under grave obligation is clear both from the very words which the Council uses and from the end which it intends.

CHURCHES are dedicated to divine worship through Consecration, which is reserved to the Bishop, or through blessing, which, by mandate of the Bishop, can be imparted by a simple priest.²³

But ORATORIES in which it is licit to celebrate are only PUBLIC Oratories. Under this name come both those which have access on a public road and are open to anyone from the people, and those which have been erected in palaces of Bishops, monasteries, seminaries, hospitals, prisons, etc. (cf. n. 678). - Oratories which are dedicated to divine worship in perpetuity can indeed be consecrated, but ordinarily they are customarily only blessed. - Indeed, if they were probably judged not going to remain for long in the same place, the blessing would more advisedly be omitted. Yet deputation of the Bishop, by himself or through another, is always required. - But in houses of Regulars, erection is made through regular Superiors.²⁴

It is said 1. By common law; for, from Apostolic Indult, it is licit to celebrate in private oratories. - Nor indeed can Bishops concede this license, unless grave and urgent causes are present, and only by way of act.²⁵ But in private oratories, it is not licit to perform Mass except on the days expressed in the Indult, and with one of the persons present to whom the Indult has directly been conceded. Nor can several Masses be celebrated there if in the Indult it is said, as it usually is said: one Mass may be celebrated daily; except if celebration had to be made for ministering Viaticum to a sick person lying ill in the same or a neighboring house; in which case, even with the indultary absent, it would be licit to celebrate.²⁶ Indeed, it is licit to celebrate in the house of the sick person or in a nearer place, if the place is decent, lest the sick person be deprived of Viaticum, namely when it can be carried neither publicly nor secretly. Thus the S. C. de Propag. Fid., December 14, 1868.²⁷

Note. 1. The privilege of a private Oratory is at the same time personal and local, and therefore adheres to the designated place and is extinguished with the person.²⁸ 2. Private Oratories are not to be blessed with the form prescribed in the Ritual, since they are not vowed to God in perpetuity.²⁹ The blessing of a house or place can be used. 3. Bishops, in certain circumstances, enjoy the privilege of a portable altar; namely when, in cases permitted by law or by special license of the Apostolic See, being absent from the house of their own habitation, they make delay in another's house; and similarly when, on the occasion of sacred Visitation or a journey, they are received somewhere as guests. Therefore in these cases, in the houses where they are staying, they can either perform Mass themselves, or command that another priest perform it before them. - But these cases removed, in no way is it licit for them, in houses of laymen, to celebrate or cause to be celebrated the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus from the Decree of Clement XI, issued December 15, 1703, and from the Constitution Apostolici ministerii of Innocent XIII, May 5, 1723.³⁰

It is said 2. By ordinary law; for, in a case of necessity, it is licit to celebrate Mass in any decent place whatever. "But CASES of necessity are: 1. if the church is destroyed; 2. if some priest is making a long pilgrimage through deserted places, or places of infidels; 3. if the church is not capable of the people, so that many would lack Mass; 4. if an army is found in camps, or a multitude of those sailing on the seashore. Thus commonly."³¹ Therefore in these and similar circumstances, lest the people be deprived of Mass on a feast day, it is licit to celebrate outside the church. But it is fitting that license be obtained from the Bishop if it can conveniently be sought. But if the case of necessity is doubtful, the Bishop can well dispense.³²

It is asked: Whether it is licit to celebrate Mass at SEA?

Resp. That this be licit, an Apostolic Indult is required; which is customarily easily conceded under the following conditions: 1. if the distance from shore is long; 2. if the sea is calm, and another priest or deacon assists, who, if some movement is stirred up, may hold the chalice firmly.³³

1628. II. It is prohibited under grave obligation, unless necessity is present, to perform sacred rites in a church POLLUTED, EXECRATED, or INTERDICTED. This is clear from Canon Law and from the Rubrics of the Missal, where it is had: "if, while a priest is celebrating, the church is violated before the Canon, let Mass be dismissed."³⁴

The reason for the first and second case is that it is not fitting that the Immaculate Host be offered and divine Offices be celebrated in a place that has become base or notoriously contaminated; whence one knowingly celebrating in a notoriously violated church sins gravely, although he incurs no censure or irregularity. But in the third case, the prohibition is in punishment of the delinquent, and the priest illicitly celebrating in an interdicted place incurs irregularity (cf. n. 1309 and 1377).

We said: unless necessity is present; for, in a case of necessity, namely if the people do not have another church, it is licit, with the permission of the Bishop if he can be approached, otherwise without it, to celebrate in an execrated or polluted church, which nevertheless is not reconciled by that celebration.¹ Likewise, in an interdicted place, on the more solemn feasts, it is permitted to celebrate, as was said at n. 1308.

1629. Questions. Q. 1. When is a church judged POLLUTED?

Resp. A church, or public oratory, is polluted or violated in four ways, as follows:

1. Through voluntary and injurious homicide, or one consummated within the church, through an action physically killing and sacrilegious, whether with shedding of blood or in another way, for example by poison, strangling, and although death itself happens outside the sacred place. Whence a church is not polluted through accidental homicide, or one done by an insane person or by another in defense of himself, with moderation of inculpable defense, or proceeding from a wound inflicted outside the church. But it is polluted through homicide which otherwise would be just through the sentence of a judge. Except, if a disturber of the republic could not otherwise be captured² (cf. n. 582, 4).

2. Through copious shedding of human blood, arising from striking or a grave wound, and gravely injurious to the immunity of the Church, as they commonly hold. - Whence a church is not polluted if the shedding of blood is accidental; if it proceeds from playful or light striking, as in a quarrel of boys; if a few drops flow; if the external action which is the cause of the shedding was not consummated in the sacred place, but outside. On the contrary, it is polluted whenever a physically and theologically grave striking happens in the church, although blood is shed outside the church itself; because the sacred place is violated not so much through the shedding of blood as through the injurious action from which it proceeds.³

3. Through voluntary and sacrilegious shedding of human seed performed in the church, whether it was through pollution, or fornication, or any other manner whatever. When a church is polluted through the conjugal act, see n. 783. To the question "whether a consecrated church which for two days served for military stations and watches is to be judged profaned, and therefore needs the reconciliation prescribed by the Pontifical," the S. R. C. on February 27, 1847, judged that one must respond: it is to be reconciled as a precaution.⁴

4. Through the burial of an excommunicated person to be avoided, a denounced heretic, or an infidel or non-baptized person. - Except, more probably, if he is a catechumen; because he is not judged an infidel, on account of baptism of desire: likewise, if he is an infant enclosed in the womb of a dead mother, and not baptized. But otherwise, if having been brought forth into the light, he died without baptism; for then the church or cemetery is polluted from his burial.⁵ Thus from the decree of the S. C. of Immunity, August 18, 1821. And here it must be noted that, the church having been polluted, the cemetery also is polluted if it is contiguous, but not vice versa. Therefore, the church having been reconciled, the cemetery is similarly reconciled.⁶

It must further be noted that, for a church to be polluted through the aforesaid crimes, it is required: 1. that they be perpetrated within the church itself, that is, in those parts which properly pertain to the body of the church, which extends from the upper vault to the pavement, and from the interior door to the last wall; 2. that they be notorious by notoriety of law or fact; whether immediately from the beginning, or by succession of time; for in each case the reputation of the church is equally lost.⁷ - As soon as the pollution has been made notorious, the sacred Eucharist ought to be removed, and, the altars having been stripped, all movable things are to be taken away.⁸

Q. 2. How is a polluted church to be reconciled?

Resp. If it was consecrated, it is to be reconciled according to the rite of the Roman Pontifical by the Bishop, or by a priest from delegation or Pontifical privilege, such as Superiors of Regulars have for their churches, provided water blessed by the Bishop is employed, or by the one reconciling himself, if the Bishop is distant by two days' journeys or 14 hours.

If the church was only blessed, it can be reconciled by a simple priest, the accustomed prayers and lustral water blessed by himself or another priest having been employed.⁹ But whether the delegation of the Bishop is prerequisite for this is not certain. Several affirm from the Roman Ritual, but Benedict XIV denies,¹⁰ and his opinion, at least when necessity urges, can be brought into practice. But a private Oratory, since it is not a sacred place, is not judged to be polluted, and therefore does not need reconciliation.

Q. 3. When is a church EXECRATED, and how is it rendered SUITABLE for worship?

Resp. 1. It is execrated when it loses its consecration or blessing: which happens "if the walls according to the greater part are destroyed, or all of their plaster or at least a greater part is removed at the same time." But it is not execrated if only the roof or upper vault is changed, or if destruction and repair are made successively through small parts, although the whole church would be renewed.¹¹ And the same must be said if it was converted to profane use; because then it needs only reconciliation.

Resp. 2. An execrated church is again to be consecrated or blessed, according to the rite and form prescribed for the consecration or blessing of churches.¹²

1326. Principles. - I. It is lawful to celebrate daily, indeed it is laudable, unless the unworthiness of the celebrant, or a special prohibition of the Church, stands in the way. - But the Church prohibits Mass from being celebrated on the day of Parasceve, or Friday of the greater Week; likewise, that several Sacrifices be made in the same Church on Thursday and Saturday of the same Week. Necessity, however, permits several Sacrifices only on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, 1° on account of the communion of the sick, who cannot assist at the solemn Mass, and in whose favor it will be lawful to celebrate a private Mass, at the judgment, however, of the Bishop; 2° on account of a feast of precept occurring on the same Thursday in the Supper of the Lord (not on Holy Saturday), in which case not indeed all priests, but some, can and must celebrate a private Mass (not of the feast, but of the Supper of the Lord) before the solemn Mass, so that the faithful may not lack fulfillment of the precept. - But that single Mass, which is celebrated on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord and on Holy Saturday, cannot be celebrated in those Churches in which the Most Holy Sacrament is not reserved. This furthermore must be celebrated in chant (excepting parochial churches, if there is no cantor present, and then with the permission of the Bishop to be sought each year) and solemnly, unless ministers are lacking.¹

II. It is not lawful ordinarily, and with special privilege excluded, to celebrate before dawn, nor after noon, nor before the recitation of Matins and Lauds. For thus it is had in the Rubrics of the Missal: "A private Mass can be said at least after Matins and Lauds, at whatever hour from dawn until noon." - It is lawful, however, to begin Mass before dawn, provided that it is not finished before dawn. Likewise it is lawful to prolong the celebration beyond noon, provided that it be begun at least at noon; for the time of dawn and noon is to be taken not mathematically, but morally.¹ But dawn begins when the first brightness is diffused over the earth, or from the beginning of light, which is various for various places and times of year. Where there is no physical dawn, one should attend to when labor is accustomed to begin.² - By special privilege, which is conceded to our Bishops and through them can be communicated to priests and is customarily so communicated, it is permitted that Mass be celebrated for one hour before dawn and another after noon. See p. LXXI. n. 23.

III. In like manner, the privilege of celebrating one hour before dawn or after noon must be understood of one hour before or after the time assigned for others not privileged; otherwise the privilege would be of little profit.³

1327. Questions. - Query 1° Does he sin gravely who celebrates before dawn or after noon?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he much anticipates or prolongs the time established by the Church; but otherwise, if the change is slight; indeed, if a just cause is present, it will be without any fault. But what change is judged notable is controverted. According to the more common and more probable opinion, it is not held grave unless the celebration is begun a whole hour before or after the established time.⁴

Query 2° When is it lawful to celebrate before dawn or after noon?

Resp. 1° In necessity, e.g. that Viaticum may be administered to one about to die; in which case it would be lawful to celebrate even at midnight. 2° Where there is a reasonable custom, e.g. that workmen and servants may be able to hear Mass very early in the morning. 3° By force of a privilege granted by the Pope, or of a dispensation in a particular case from a reasonable cause by the Bishop, or for exempt religious by their Superior; 4° from the cause of a journey, for an hour after noon or before dawn; 5° likewise because of the funeral of some magnate, or of a sermon, or of a public supplication.⁵

Query 3° What sort of sin is it to celebrate Mass before the recitation of Matins and Lauds?

Resp. See n. 1100. q. 2°.

Query 4° Is it lawful to celebrate more than once in a day?

Resp. No, speaking generally according to the present practice of the Church, although formerly it was not prohibited. This is established from various places of Canon Law and from the Decree of Benedict XIV, 16 March 1746.

Except 1° the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, on which it is lawful to celebrate three Masses; 2° if a Pastor before the ablution is moved concerning communicating the sick, and has already consumed his Host, and no other fasting priest is found.¹

Query 5° When is it lawful to celebrate Mass twice in the day by permission of the Bishop?

Resp. With the Bishop permitting it, Mass can be celebrated twice (but never more than twice) by the same priest on Sundays and feasts of precept not suppressed, if necessity demands it, but not on account of custom alone, nor for the convenience of those who enjoy the privilege of a private oratory, nor on account of the poverty of the priest, nor where another priest is had through whom provision can be made for the necessity. Benedict XIV, Const. Declarasti nobis, and c. consuluisti (3) de celebrat. Miss. (L. III. Decr. T. XLI.). See p. LIV-LVI. n. 1-9.

Query 6° When is necessity judged to be present for celebrating twice in the day?

Resp. See p. LVI. n. 10. 11. See the broader faculty of our Bishops p. LXXI, LXXII. 23, and its declaration p. LVI. n. 11 sq.

Query 7° Can he who celebrates two Masses accept a duplicated stipend?

Resp. No; and Pius IX strictly prohibited this. - Thus S. C. C.² - Nevertheless, sometimes there is given, and to the Ordinaries of Missions there has been given, the faculty, for a just and grave cause, of permitting priests to receive a stipend also for the second Mass. Thus from the Letters of the S. C. de P. F. 15 Oct. 1863, which Rev. Th. T. IV. p. 101 exhibits. (12) p. 418.

Query 8° Would it be lawful in this case to accept a double stipend on this condition, that the other stipend be expended for a pious use?

Resp. No, without an Indult of the Supreme Pontiff, which indeed the Pontiff was unwilling to grant to the Archbishop of Cologne. - Thus S. C. C.³

Query 9° Is it lawful in the night of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate all three Masses before dawn?

Resp. No, without an indult, or unless one of the causes alleged above in this n. q. 2° is present, some one of which, however, will very rarely be present on this day. It is clear from the Rubric of the Missal: "The first Mass is said in the night; the second at dawn; and the third in the day"; likewise from the decree of the S. C. R.:¹ "A priest who celebrates only one Mass should read the Mass which corresponds approximately to the hour according to the particular Rubrics of the same day." S. R. C. 19 June 1875.

Query 10° Through what space of time ought a low Mass to last?

Resp. The general rule is that Mass ought neither to be longer than half an hour, lest those present be affected by weariness, nor shorter than a third part of an hour, because otherwise it will not be able to be celebrated becomingly. But you will not excuse from mortal sin a priest who, in making the Sacrifice, does not reach a quarter of an hour. St. Alphonsus² gives the reason, because in so brief a space he must necessarily commit two grave defects, one of grave irreverence toward the Sacrament,³ the other of grave scandal toward the people. But it is to be desired, and earnestly commended to all priests, that in making the Sacrifice they complete half an hour.

Query 11° How much time, when the Sacrifice has been completed, ought to be spent in giving thanks to God?

Resp. No entirely certain rule is given. But the more benign require at least a quarter part of an hour. - St. Alphonsus³ earnestly persuades that at least a half-hour be spent on this pious exercise by a priest, who ought to offer an example to the faithful.

S. Th. III, q. 83, a. 2-6.

387. On the time of celebration. - A. Days. - For a priest well disposed, speaking in itself and with the prohibition of the Church set aside, it is licit to celebrate daily, indeed also laudable. For, as the Book of the Imitation of Christ says, IV, c. 5: "When a priest celebrates, he honors God, gladdens the angels, builds up the Church, helps the living, gives rest to the dead, and makes himself a participant in all goods." And St. Bonaventure, de praep. ad mis., c. 5: "The priest who does not celebrate, as much as is in him, deprives the Trinity of praise and glory; those existing in purgatory of refreshment; the Church of Christ of a special benefit; himself of medicine or remedy against daily sins and infirmities." "For because we daily need the fruit of the Lord's passion on account of daily defects," St. Thomas notes, a. 2, "daily in the Church this sacrament is regularly offered." Hence can. 820: "The sacrifice of the Mass can be celebrated on all days, except those which are excluded by the proper rite of the priest."

In the Latin rite:

1. The day of Parasceve is entirely excluded, because on that day the passion of the Lord is recalled insofar as it was really, i.e., bloodily, accomplished, and therefore is not represented mystically or bloodlessly (a. 2, ad 2). Nevertheless all the faithful are permitted to communicate, as will be said below, n. 392.

2. On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the Mass of Chrism is to be celebrated in cathedral churches after Terce. But the Mass in Coena Domini is to be celebrated solemnly in the evening, at the more opportune hour, not however before the fifth hour nor later than the eighth. But where the salvation of souls suggests it, the Ordinary of the place can permit that in any church or public oratory one or two low Masses be celebrated; in a semi-public oratory, however, only one, so that all the faithful may be able to assist at the Holy Sacrifice and also be refreshed by Holy Communion. Private Masses are forbidden. The low Masses which are permitted by the Ordinary are to be said at the same hours as the solemn one.

On Holy Saturday no Mass is permitted, except the solemn one at night (Decree Maxima Redemptionis, S. C. Rit., Nov. 16, 1955, with the annexed Instruction).

B. Hour. - According to present-day discipline, "the beginning of the Mass to be celebrated should not take place earlier than one hour before dawn or later than one hour after midday," can. 821, § 1.

Dawn is the beginning of the daylight of the day, or the irradiation of the first light, which precedes sunrise more or less according to the variety of times and places; where dawn is not had, it is to be taken from the beginning of civil, moral, and usual life, when men rise for work (S. C. R., Nov. 2, 1634). This time is to be taken not mathematically but morally, and indeed for a public Mass according to the common usage of the place; but for private Masses according to time whether true, mean, or legal (can. 33, § 1).

The prescription obliges under grave sin (Council of Trent, sess. 22; Pius V, March 29, 1566), so that a notable transgression of it is a mortal sin, such as is customarily judged to be one which exceeds a whole hour before or after the established time. Nevertheless exceptions are admitted:

1. From privilege, at least if it has been granted after the Council of Trent, as was done for certain religious orders.

2. From dispensation of the Ordinary in a particular case (S. C. R., July 7, 1899, ad 4).

3. From reasonable custom, for example that workers and servants may be able to hear Mass very early.

4. From a just cause occurring, for example a journey, public supplication, funerals, nuptials, administering Viaticum: a lighter cause suffices for a moderate departure from the time permitted by law, and the graver the anticipation or postponement becomes, the graver cause is required.

5. As is established by the decree of the S. C. Rit., of Nov. 16, 1955:

a) On Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, the solemn Mass, and also the low Masses which are permitted by the Ordinary of the place, must be celebrated in the evening, not however before the fifth hour nor later than the eighth.

b) On Friday in Parasceve the solemn liturgical rites are to be celebrated after midday, around the third hour. If, however, an opportune reason suggests it, they can be celebrated later, but not beyond the sixth hour.

c) The solemnities of the Paschal Vigil are to be held in such a way that the solemn Mass of the vigil begins around the middle of the night between Holy Saturday and the Sunday of the Resurrection of the Lord.

If, however, in the judgment of the Ordinary of the place it is expedient to begin the celebration of the Vigil earlier, this is permitted, but in no way before sunset.

6. On the night of the Nativity of the Lord, at midnight, but not before, the conventual or parish Mass can be begun, but not another without an apostolic indult (can. 821, § 2); but in all religious and pious houses having an oratory with the faculty of habitually reserving the most holy Sacrament, one priest can celebrate three ritual Masses, or, with the things to be observed being observed, only one (ibid., § 3); likewise holy communion can be ministered to those asking (ibid., and can. 867, § 4; cf. n. 392 A, c. 1). Nevertheless this does not import the faculty of celebrating with open doors: for in this matter even regulars should conform themselves to the prohibitions of bishops (S. Off., Nov. 26, 1908).

7. The Apostolic Constitution Christus Dominus and the Instruction of the C. S. Office on the sixth day of January 1953 gives faculties to Ordinaries of places as to evening Masses. Namely, they enjoy the faculty of permitting the celebration of evening Mass in their own territory, if circumstances necessarily require this, notwithstanding the prescription of can. 821, § 1. The common good sometimes demands the celebration of the sacred mysteries after midday: for example, for workers of certain industries, who even on feast days succeed one another in shifts of labor; for those classes of workers who are occupied in the morning hours of feasts, as those assigned to the duties of ports; likewise for those who from distant regions come together in very great number into one place, to celebrate a certain religious or social festivity, etc.

The Motu Proprio Sacram Communionem of March 19, 1957, gives to Ordinaries of places, vicars general without a special mandate excepted, the faculty of permitting celebration of Mass in the afternoon hours, and this indeed daily, if the spiritual good of a notable part of the Christian faithful requires it. Masses of this kind cannot be celebrated before the fourth hour after midday.

C. How many times in a day. - According to can. 806, § 1, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord and the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, on which there is the faculty of offering the sacrifice three times, it is not licit for a priest to celebrate several Masses in a day, unless from an apostolic indult or from a power granted by the Ordinary of the place. This obliges under grave sin, so that a priest who presumes to act otherwise is to be punished (can. 2321). Accordingly:

1. In the Latin Church priests can celebrate three times on the Nativity of the Lord, in honor of the threefold nativity of Christ: temporal, spiritual, and eternal; likewise on the commemoration of all the departed; and he who from an indult always says a votive Mass, for example of the Blessed Virgin, or some Mass for the departed, can say the same respectively three times (S. C. R., Jan. 26, 1920).

2. The Ordinary of the place can grant the faculty of binating, but only "when, in his prudent judgment, on account of a scarcity of priests, on a feast day of precept a notable part of the faithful cannot be present at Mass (such as a multitude of at least 20 or 30 persons is judged to be); - but it is not in his power to permit more than two Masses to the same priest" (can. 806, § 2). Thus bination can be permitted, indeed commanded, if one priest rules two parishes or two churches sufficiently distant, or if there is only one church to which the whole people cannot come together at the same time for the same Mass because of the narrowness of the place or a less fitting time; provided, however, in either case that no other priest is present. But to say three Masses is not licit except from a special apostolic indult.

The faculty of binating, not indeed one had personally from an indult, but one granted by the Ordinary, is not merely personal, but real; whence, when the pastor is absent or impeded, the one supplying his place can use it. But in a case of sudden necessity the license of the bishop, if he cannot be approached, can be presumed; unless diocesan or provincial statutes require that the judgment of the vicar forane or dean intervene.

Priests who celebrate twice or three times can in the prior Masses take the prescribed ablutions, but with water alone being used, unless it is a matter of the three Masses on the day of the Nativity of the Lord or on the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed celebrated without interruption, in which they are bound to observe the special rubrics of these Masses.

3. Priests who celebrate the solemn Mass at night in the Paschal Vigil can on the day of the Resurrection also offer the festive Mass of the day, or even several Masses if they have the faculty for this.

Ordinaries of places who, on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, celebrate the Mass of Chrism after Terce, can also celebrate the Solemn Mass in the evening. It is permitted to the same Ordinaries, if on Holy Saturday they have celebrated the Mass of the Paschal Vigil, also to celebrate the solemn Mass on Sunday in the Resurrection, without being bound to this (cf. Decree of the S. C. Rit. of Nov. 16, 1955, with the Instruction added by the same Sacred Congregation).

D. Time to be spent. - For a private Mass, the space of time to be spent should approach about a half hour; and, Benedict XIV warning, de sacrif. mis., sect. 2, n. 217, "it ought to reach at least the third part of an hour, and not exceed half an hour." He will not easily be excused from mortal sin who completes Mass within a quarter hour, at least habitually, since this of itself is apt to import grave irreverence toward the sacrament and grave scandal of the people: thus St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 400.

I say 1st. The Sacrifice of the Mass can be celebrated on all days, except those which are excluded by the proper rite of the priest (Can. 820).

Indeed, a priest laudably celebrates daily, unless either his own unworthiness or the prohibition of the Church stands in the way.

I say 2nd. §1. The beginning of Mass to be celebrated is not to be made earlier than one hour before dawn or later than one hour after noon.

§2. On the night of the Nativity of the Lord, only a conventual or parochial Mass can be begun at midnight, but not another without apostolic indult (Can. 821).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1128, n. 87.

Question 1. Does one sin gravely who celebrates before and after the time prescribed by the Church?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he anticipates or prolongs by much the time established by the Church; but otherwise, if the change is slight; indeed, if a just cause is present, he will be free from every fault. But what change is judged notable is controverted. According to the more common and more probable opinion, it is not held grave unless the celebration is begun a whole hour before or after the established time. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 246.

Question 2. When is it lawful to anticipate or prolong the time of celebration?

Resp. It is lawful 1st. in necessity, for example, that Viaticum may be administered to one dying, in which case it would be lawful to celebrate even at midnight; 2nd. where there is a reasonable custom, for example, so that workers and servants may be able to hear the Sacrifice very early in the morning; 3rd. by force of a privilege granted by the Pope, or of a faculty from the Bishop, or even from a religious Prelate as regards subjects, given in some particular case for a reasonable cause; 4th. when otherwise a great part of the people would lack Mass; from the cause of a journey, of some more solemn funeral, of a sermon, of a public supplication, of the conferral of Orders, at least for one or another hour. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 343 and following. - Lehmkuhl, n. 217.

Question 3. Is it lawful to celebrate more often in a day?

Resp. §1. Except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord and the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, on which there is the faculty of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice three times, it is not lawful for a priest to celebrate several Masses in a day, unless from apostolic indult or from power granted by the local Ordinary.

§2. But the Ordinary cannot impart this faculty unless, in his prudent judgment, on account of scarcity of priests on a feast day of precept, a notable part of the faithful cannot be present at Mass; nor is it in his power to permit more than two Masses to the same priest (Can. 806).

The Baltimore Fathers, Third Plenary Council, nn. 103 and following, speak thus: "Up to this time the Church has wished to determine by no precise rule when otherwise repetition of Mass is legitimate or even necessary. Rather, it has preferred to leave the matter to be decided by the judgment of Ordinaries, so that in their prudence and charity, according to the gravity of the cause, they may repeat Mass or permit it to be repeated by their missionaries.

"But neither does the Holy See wish that, on account of fear of the rigor by which the formula of the faculty is fortified, those using the same should be excessively anxious. For from often-repeated Apostolic declarations and responses it is manifest that for repetition a true necessity is indeed required, but by no means an absolute one, rather a moral one, which is to be judged to exist as often as, with supply of priests lacking and with all other circumstances maturely weighed, it is judged that it will be vehemently useful to the faithful that priests celebrate Mass twice on the same feast day. If such a necessity has been present, let them not only not fear liability of illicit repetition, but rather let them judge that they will be failing in their duty if either they themselves do not repeat Mass for the necessity of the people or do not concede this faculty to their missionaries.

"Let missionary priests note well that they can never use the aforesaid faculty except 'dependently upon the Ordinary, to whom it pertains to pass sentence both concerning the true necessity and concerning the possibility of applying canonical remedies,' and that permission is not to be presumed by anyone so long as recourse to the Ordinary is open." - Cf. Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 103 and following; and Appendix, pp. 233 and following. - Acta S. Sedis, vol. 12, pp. 232 and following; vol. 13, pp. 340 and following; vol. 16, pp. 35 and following.

Question 4. Can one who celebrates two Masses receive two stipends?

Resp. Negatively, entirely, with a special indult excluded.

§2. But as often as he celebrates more than once in a day, if he applies one Mass from a title of justice, the priest, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, cannot receive alms for the other, except some remuneration from an extrinsic title (Can. 824).¹

On the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, it is lawful for a Priest to apply one of the three Masses, which pleases him more, to whomever he shall have preferred, and to receive a stipend from it. S. C. C. 15 Oct. 1915.²

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1095, n. 29; p. 1109, n. 52.

² Cf. Addenda, p. 1095, n. 29; p. 1109, n. 52.

Question 5. Is it lawful on the night of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate all three Masses before dawn?

Resp. Negatively, without the permission of the Bishop from a just cause, or without Apostolic indult. For the Rubric of the Missal expressly prohibits this, which has it thus: "The first Mass is said in the night; the second at dawn; and the third in the day." This is established also from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued on 18 Dec. 1702, which has itself thus: "It is not lawful at midnight of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate successively the two other [Masses] and to exhibit holy Communion."

§3. Nevertheless, in all religious or pious houses having an oratory with the faculty of habitually reserving the Most Holy Eucharist, on the night of the Nativity of the Lord, one priest can celebrate the three ritual Masses, or, with the things to be observed being observed, only one which may avail also for the satisfaction of the precept for all present, and can administer holy communion to those asking (Can. 821).

Cardinals have the faculty of celebrating, or of permitting others to celebrate before them, Mass on Feria V of Greater Week and three Masses on the night of the Nativity of the Lord. - According to this privilege, before the Cardinal himself it would be lawful on the night of the Nativity to say three Masses, in any church with open doors, and to administer communion. - Cf. Can. 239.

Question 6. How much space of time must a read Mass last?

Resp. The general rule is that Mass ought neither to be longer than half an hour, lest those standing by be affected with weariness, nor shorter than a third part of an hour, because otherwise it will not be possible to celebrate decently. But you will not excuse from mortal sin a priest who, in making the Sacrifice, does not reach a quarter of an hour; because, as St. Alphonsus says, in so brief a space he must necessarily commit two grave defects, one of grave irreverence toward the sacrament, the other of grave scandal toward the people. Wherefore that distich is known:

If your Mass shall have been shorter than one quarter,

You will be believed guilty of mortal fault.

We were asked, last year, shortly before Holy Week, by the pastor of a small country parish, whether it would be lawful for him to say a low Mass on Holy Thursday for the accommodation of his people, when it was practically impossible for him to carry out any of the other ceremonies of Holy Thursday or to say the Mass of the presanctified on Good Friday, or to perform any of the sacred rites of Easter Saturday. His people, he said, could not attend any other church on that day on account of the distance, nor would they understand why he did not say Mass on Holy Thursday, even though he could not hold services on Good Friday or Holy Saturday. His people were very anxious to hear Mass on that day above all others, and to receive Holy Communion, as it was the august anniversary of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, and he was very anxious to satisfy their desires, if it were at all lawful for him to do so.

Answer. Gasparri, tract. can. de Smo. Euch. n. 67, says: "The general principle that obtains in the Church to-day is, that Mass may be celebrated on any day in the year." “This discipline is in force today: namely, the general principle is that Mass can be celebrated on any day.” However, the Latin Rite excepts from this general rule, the three last days of Holy Week, viz., Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday. But even as regards these three days, there is a great difference between Holy Thursday and the other two days. Holy Thursday has its own proper Mass, and is not a "dies aliturgicus," Indeed, formerly, three Masses were celebrated on Holy Thursday; one for reconciling penitents to the Church, the other for the consecration of the oils, and a third one in memory of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. It is a very ancient custom in the Church, that the clergy abstain from saying Mass on Holy Thursday, and assist at this third Mass. And thus the custom was gradually introduced, that on Holy Thursday a solemn Mass was celebrated, and all low Masses were forbidden. This is now the general rule for the whole Church; private Masses, or low Masses, are prohibited on Holy Thursday. But this rule again is not so absolute that it suffers no exceptions. “Moreover, that private Masses are prohibited on Thursday of Holy Week is the general rule; it is not, however, so absolute that private Masses may never be celebrated on this day for the convenience of the faithful.” (Ibid. n. 75.)

Among the exceptions, now, that writers on the sacred liturgy enumerate, when it is lawful to say a low Mass on Holy Thursday, we find the very case as stated in the beginning of this article.

In the year 1821, the following "Dubium" was laid before the Congregation of Rites:

May the custom be tolerated that obtains in some parishes, especially in the country, of celebrating a low Mass on Holy Thursday, when the other sacred rites, prescribed to be performed on that day and on Good Friday, can not be carried out, owing to the lack of clergy; or is the custom to be abolished?

“Whether the custom prevailing in some parishes, especially rural ones, of having the pastor celebrate a LOW MASS on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper, although because of a lack of clerics the other prescribed ecclesiastical functions cannot be performed on that day and the following day, is to be tolerated; or rather is to be abolished?”

The Sacred Congregation of Rites made reply, on June 28, 1821, as follows:

"Yes (the custom may be tolerated of saying a low Mass on Holy Thursday, even when it is impossible to carry out any of the other ceremonies) with certain restrictions; namely, that the Ordinary of the diocese endeavor to have the sacred rites and ceremonies of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday carried out according to the small Ritual of Benedict XIII. published in 1725, in all parishes where at least three or four clergy can be had; as regards other parishes, where there are no clergy, the Ordinary may permit for the accommodation of the people, that pastors, having first obtained permission each year, celebrate a low Mass on Holy Thursday, provided the low Mass be said at an earlier hour than the Mass in the cathedral or in the parent church."

“The same Sacred Congregation, after the matter had been diligently discussed and the consultor’s opinion heard, judged that the answer should be: Affirmative, and according to the intention. The intention is that the local Ordinaries, with regard to parishes in which three, or at least four, clerics can be had, should endeavor to have the sacred functions performed on Thursday and Friday and on Saturday of Holy Week, the form of the small Ritual issued by command of Benedict XIII of holy memory in the year 1725 being observed; but with regard to other parishes which lack clerics, they may grant, for the convenience of the people, that pastors (permission being requested every year) may celebrate a low Mass on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper before the conventual Mass begins in the cathedral or mother church. And the matter is referred to the Lord Secretary to confer with His Holiness.”

This reply of the Sacred Congregation of Rites was approved and confirmed by Pius VII., on July 31, 1821.

If we enquire farther, as to the reason of the present discipline of the Church, which forbids low Masses on Holy Thursday, we find that it is owing not to the liturgical quality of the day, because Holy Thursday has its own proper Mass, but to the reverence due to the most sublime mystery of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. This reverence is emphasized by the priests abstaining from celebrating the divine mysteries, and receiving Holy Communion, after the manner of the laity, from the hands of the bishop or parish priest, who says the Mass. For thus they recall more vividly the scene of the Last Supper, when the disciples received the body and blood of our divine Saviour under the species of bread and wine, from the hands of the Saviour Himself.

"For as our divine Saviour," says Benedict XIV., "first partook of the divine mysteries Himself, and then gave to His apostles, so it is becoming that the priest having first received the Holy Eucharist himself, should thereupon distribute it to the other clergy, who are attached to the church where the holy sacrifice is offered" (in Inst. 38).

Since, however, there are many small country churches, where it is impossible to carry out the other rites and ceremonies of Holy Week, Benedict XIII. had a small ritual^* compiled for the use of poor parishes, which enables them to have very simple services on Holy Thursday and Good Friday and Holy Saturday. And this seems to have been the opinion of Benedict XIV., for when he was Archbishop of Bologna, he ordained “but if, apart from the PASTOR IN HIS OWN PARISH, any priest.... should have dared to celebrate Mass privately on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday of Holy Week, we shall punish him severely, etc.”

^* Appeared in English under the title: "The Ceremonies of Holy Week in Churches with Only One Priest." (Wagner, New York.)

Again the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked: “Whether on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper one private Mass, besides the solemn Mass, may be celebrated in a church (not in a private hospital chapel, but in a public church) for the sick,” answered on March 27, 1773: “at the discretion of the Bishop.”

Again the Sacred Congregation was asked: “Whether it is lawful on the aforesaid Thursday to sing Mass without the consecration of another host and without a procession.” The reply was: “Affirmative, according to the decree of Pope Pius VII, provided at least that the bishop’s permission has been obtained.” D'Annibale, III., 402. not. 20, remarks that in many places the bishop's permission is not asked.

Fr. Schneider, S.J., interprets the words of the Congregation of Rites in the decree of June 28, 1821, "paroeciae quae clericis destituuntur" in this wise: "By parishes without clergy are meant not only parish churches, but other churches that rank lower than parish churches, but which have a priest attached to them, chapels in hospitals, in prisons, churches or chapels of small convents, of men or women, if they be cloistered and have their own priest and have the permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament." (Manuale Sacerdotum, p. 532.)

To this Gasparri (de S S mo. Eucharistia, vol. I. n. 81) adds that in practice, a low Mass without any other ceremony, on Holy Thursday, may be said in the chapels of nuns who are in no sense cloistered, if it be inconvenient for them to go to the parish church, v. g., Sisters of Charity.

To sum up, therefore, we say that in churches where there is only one priest, he is obliged to follow the small Ritual of Benedict XIII., if he wishes to hold services on the three last days of Holy Week. But if this is impossible, and he desires only to say a low Mass on Holy Thursday, and to consecrate only one host and to have no procession of the Blessed Sacrament, then he is, generally speaking, obliged to get his bishop's permission for this, each year.

In a parish the pastor was suddenly taken ill in the night between Saturday and Sunday. Feeling himself unable to say Mass on Sunday, he sent for his assistant before six in the morning, and told him to say the early Mass as usual, because there were already a great many people in the church who could not possibly attend a later Mass. He was not to take any purification or ablution after Holy Communion, because he would have to say the second Mass at 9 a. m. and it was impossible to omit this Mass, as a number of people were expected from other parishes to celebrate the meeting of a confraternity.

The assistant pointed out that duplication was not allowed without the Bishop's permission, but the rector reassured him, and said that in such unforeseen circumstances one might take this permission for granted; he would himself report what had happened. The assistant obeyed, and at the first Mass explained matters to the congregation, and later celebrated the Mass at nine o'clock, although he felt some anxiety, and his parishioners were somewhat astonished, as well as the strangers who had come to the festival and had heard of the occurrence. What opinion ought we to form of the rector's action?

Answer.—According to the existing laws of the Church, binatio (except on Christmas day) is allowed de jure communi only incase of necessity. A case of necessity occurs on days when the faithful are bound to hear Mass, and one priest has to serve two churches at some considerable distance apart, so that the congre-

207 --' gation of one church would be unable to hear Mass at all if the priest did not come. Another case of necessity occurs when it would be impossible for all the parishioners attending one church to be present at the same Mass. In both these cases the Bishop must recognize the actual necessity of binatio before sanctioning it. Apart from a case of absolute necessity a Bishop can sanction binatio under special circumstances (Missions, etc.), only if he has received faculties from the Holy See. That we have a casus verae necessitatis under discussion is plain. The strangers who were coming to the nine o'clock Mass would have missed Mass altogether if the early Mass had been the only one said that day, and so would a considerable part of the ordinary congregation. If the early Mass had been omitted, and the High Mass at nine o'clock had been the only one said that day, there would be good reason to fear that many of the people already assembled would not return, and so would miss Mass. It would be an incommodum grave for them to wait three hours or to go to some other church, which might be far away. They could not hear early Mass anywhere, and the second is, as a rule, much later in the morning. In the short interval (from six to nine o'clock) it was hardly possible to obtain the Bishop's sanction, especially if there was no telegraph office in the neighborhood, and the nearest station was some distance off. Hence it was quite right to take the Bishop's permission for granted, and all requirements were satisfied by the official report sent in later.

Noldin (Summa theol. mor. de sacram., n. 206) discusses a precisely similar case, and says: "In an unforeseen case of urgent necessity in which recourse to the bishop is impossible, a second Mass may be celebrated by presumed permission, provided the celebrant is fasting. If, for example, in a place where two priests have the care of souls, one of them is seized by illness on Saturday so that he cannot celebrate on the following day, the other may celebrate twice on Sunday if another priest cannot be obtained and otherwise a large part of the people—about sixty persons—would be deprived of Mass. After the event, however, the matter must be referred to the Ordinary for recognition of the cause." (Cf. also Gury, Casus consc, II. n. 264).—Dr. Johann Gföllner.