Images de page
[ocr errors]

In regard to the part of this quotation which refers to common error, the first thing that strikes one is that it seems to contain a contradiction, The author states explicitly that common error must be accompanied by a coloured title,' in order that jurisdiction may be supplied; but immediately after he implies that a title would not be necessary if an Ordinary or confessor were commonly but erroneously supposed to have the necessary faculties. We really cannot see how the two positions are to be reconciled.

On the main question we have not the slightest doubt. We are quite convinced that the Church supplies jurisdiction in common error, even though it is unaccompanied by a 'coloured title.' Canon 209 states simply that in common error . . the Church supplies jurisdiction'; and we cannot go behind the words of the law. This position receives confirmation-if confirmation be needed-from the controversy which existed on this subject prior to the publication of the Code. Those who drafted Canon 209 were, of course, aware that some canonists insisted upon, whilst others denied, the necessity of a 'coloured title'; it is clear, therefore, from the form of this canon, that they meant to adopt the more liberal view.

We do not agree with Father Augustine's teaching regarding doubtful jurisdiction, viz., that the Church supplies only when the opinion favouring the existence of the jurisdiction is more probable than the opposite one. It is a recognized principle of interpretation that the words of a law must be given their ordinary meaning. Now, Father Augustine, in regarding probable doubt as 'one which for certain reasons and circumstances inclines more to one side than to the other, in this case more to the side of the power being vested in the person whose court is sought,' departs from the recognized meaning of this term. A doubt or opinion is probable, if there is a good strong reason to support it, even though the opposite view may be based upon even a more solid foundation. There is no need to quote any authority in support of this statement: it is one of the presuppositions of the controversy on probabilism. Hence, it is our opinion that the Church supplies jurisdiction, if there is a grave positive reason for affirming its existence, even though there may be a somewhat stronger one for denying it.






REV. DEAR SIR,-I read with interest your article on 'The Titular of a Church,' in the March number of the I. E. RECORD.

I. A chaplain to a convent, situated in St. Patrick's parish at W., is not clear on the question of his Titular. In the diocesan Ordo one reads this direction: In Suff. S.S. ad literam N. dicendum est nomen S. Patroni propriae ecclesiae.' The chapel of the convent is an iron building. It was duly blessed according to the Ritual by the VicarForane, and is placed under the invocation of the 'Sacred Heart of Mary.' The parish church is equally an iron building, known as 'St. Patrick's Church.' Does an iron church or chapel come under the description of a building only temporarily destined for divine worship . . . which cannot have a Titular in the strict liturgical sense'?

[ocr errors]


Your article also states that every church or oratory which has received the solemn blessing has a Titular. The chaplain is informed that St. Patrick is the Titular to be invoked under the letter N, in the Suffrage of the Saints. The chaplain feels quite at sea about his Titular, and he wishes to know what name he should place under the letter N.

The chaplain would be grateful for the information as to what rite is the feast of the Titular of the parish church to be kept in the Mass and Office said by the convent chaplain. So far, the chaplain has kept this feastsub ritu duplici 1 cl., cum Credo, sine Octava.'


II. Your article, Mass on Holy Thursday,' published March, 1918, in the I. E. RECORD, has given rise to some doubts about the lawfulness of several other functions carried out in a convent chapel according to the directions of the Memoriale Rituum for small churches. Is it at least permissible for a chaplain to nuns to follow the Memoriale Rituum on Ash Wednesday for the blessing of the ashes; on the feast of the Purification for the blessing of the candles; on Palm Sunday for the blessing of the palms?

May I ask you for a reply in time to guide the anxious chaplain for next Palm Sunday? It is hardly necessary to say that a refusal to bless the palms would bring discredit on the chaplain.


I. An iron church or chapel, although it must not be consecrated, can receive the solemn blessing and can, therefore, have a Titular. One of the canons of the new Code states1: 'Ecclesia ex ligno vel ferro aliove metallo benedici potest, non autem consecrari.' It is clear from the wording of the whole canon that there is question of the solemn blessing, and not of the mere benedictio loci. If further proof is needed we may point to a subsequent canon which says: Unaquaeque ecclesia consecrata vel benedicta suum habeat titulum.' The benedictio loci, according to all, does not confer a 'Title.' An iron church is really a church, and is so

11165. § 4.

[ocr errors]

21168, § 1. The italics are ours.

called by the canon we have quoted. It is not destined for merely temporary use, at least not necessarily. It may have to serve the needs of a congregation for quite an indefinite period. No doubt, the intention may be to supply its place, in happier times, by a more costly and more permanent structure. But the same might be said of many churches of stone; for no church can be expected to last for ever. What is true of the parish church is also true of the convent chapel. Each has legitimately received the solemn blessing, and each has, therefore, its Titular. We have already pointed out that the word 'Patron' is sometimes used instead of 'Titular'; but the more correct modern usage is to speak of the Titular of a church and the Patron of a territory.

Our correspondent does not clearly state whether he is simply chaplain to the convent or is also attached to the parish church. If he is a curate in the parish, he is bound to take notice of the Titular of the church, just in the same way as the parish priest. We gather, however, that the chaplain, although living in the parish, is not attached to the parish church. If this supposition is correct, he will take no notice of the rite according to which the feast of St. Patrick is celebrated in the parish church, but will follow the ordinary directions for the celebration of the feast in England; nor is the name of St. Patrick to be inserted by him in the Suffrage of the Saints. Since he is not servitio ecclesiae addictus' he has no special obligations towards its Titular. This principle has been enunciated several times by the Congregation of Rites, 2

With regard to the Titular of the convent chapel, there can be no difficulty, since the name of the Blessed Virgin (to whom the chapel is dedicated) is already included in the Suffragium, and cannot be repeated. A difficulty may suggest itself regarding the celebration of the feast of this Titular. There is no feast of the 'Sacred Heart of Mary.' In a precisely similar case the Congregation of Rites decided: 'Festum Assumptionis B.V.M. habendum esse pro titulari Provinciae, ejusque conventuum qui titulo gaudent ejusdem B.V.M., absque adjuncta denominatione alicuius Mysterii de qua Festum speciale celebratur.' Of course, the feast of the Assumption is already celebrated as a double of the first class, with an octave. As long, therefore, as the chaplain holds his present position the letter N should not be a cause of worry. II. The Memoriale Rituum makes provision not only for the ceremonies of Holy Week but also for the blessing of the candles on the feast of the Purification, of the ashes on Ash Wednesday, and of the palms on Palm Sunday. No one holds that the functions of Holy Week can be carried out in non-parochial churches according to the Memoriale without an apostolic indult (or an immemorial custom which supposes such an indult). It is generally held, too, that the same rule is to be

[blocks in formation]

applied to the functions on the feast of the Purification, Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday. Thus, Van der Stappen writes1 :—

Notandum vero est quod functiones sacras persolvere modo in Memoriale Rituum descripto licet tantum in minoribus ecclesiis parochialibus, non autem in ecclesiis quae parochiales non sunt, nempe in oratoriis regularium, fratrum religiosorum, et monialium seu feminarum religiosarum; etenim in hujusmodi ecclesiis et oratoriis, Officia Hebdomadae sanctae, aliaque similia juxta Memoriale Rituum persolvi non posse rescribendum censuit S. Rituum Congregatio (Decret. 16 Martii, 1876, Mechlinien., n. 3390). Itaque hujusmodi ecclesiae et oratoria indigent indulto speciali, ut in ipsis functiones sacras juxta Memoriale persolvere liceat. De Amicis is equally emphatic 2:—

[ocr errors]

Benedictio cinerum, candelarum et palmarum fieri nequit in ecclesiis quae parochiales non sunt, neque in oratoriis regularium, religiosorum et monialium, seu Congregationum religiosarum, si non habeant indultum asservandi SS. Sacramentum, et careant sufficienti numero ministrorum, ad solemniter functiones peragendas; etenim in hujusmodi ecclesiis vel oratoriis officia hebdomadae sanctae aliaque similia juxta memoriale rituum persolvi non posse rescribendum censuit S.R.C. (D. 3890), et indigent speciali indulto.

A more recent writer, however, holds the contrary view. Having laid down that an indult is required for the use of the Memoriale in non-parochial churches during Holy Week, P. Victorii ab Appeltern proceeds

[ocr errors]

Pro aliis autem functionibus, uti Benedictionis Candelarum, Cinerum, Palmarum, non est opus speciali facultate, ut juxta idem parvum Rituale Benedicti XIII peragantur, sed, nisi copia adsit sacrorum Ministrorum, juxta illud semper et ubique expleri possunt.

He does not even suggest that there is a second opinion on the matter, and contents himself with citing the Ephemerides Liturgicae (vol. xi. p. 361), and a declaration of the Congregation of Rites (Decr. n. 3813). Unfortunately, we are unable to verify the former reference, so as to be able to examine the arguments used. The declaration of the Congregation is this: 'Benedictiones Candelarum, Cinerum atque Palmarum esse ex obligatione faciendas in omnibus Ecclesiis Collegialibus; in aliis autem posse fieri.' Here it is not stated how these blessings are to be given solemnly or according to the Memoriale. Appeltern, apparently, wishes us to infer that, since no distinction is made, either method may be followed. We must say that the conclusion is a rather wide one, in view of the Mechlin answer. But if one admits the validity of the conclusion it would be possible to understand that answer and explain it in a sense which is not contradictory. The reputation of the writer we have named is deservedly high, and any opinion he puts forward is worthy of serious consideration. This particular view of his we cannot regard as altogether improbable, though it must be confessed that the weight. of evidence and authority is on the other side.

1 Vol. v. Q. 134, 2.
2 Caerem. Paroch., tomus ii. p. 125.
3 S. Liturg. Promptuarium, vol. i. p. 522.



REV. DEAR SIR,-Where there is holy water in the stoup at every door of the church, is there still an obligation on the priest to sprinkle the congregation before the principal Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation? If there is such an obligation at a Low Mass, please state whether the antiphon, versicle, response and prayer are to be sung or merely read.


The fact that there is holy water in the stoup at every door of the church has nothing to do with the question. Whatever obligation exists is restricted to Sundays and should not be extended to holydays of obligation. It cannot be proved that the general law imposes any obligation when there is question of a Low Mass in a parochial church. In fact, it is now generally held that there is no such obligation. In many dioceses, however, there is a synodal law which should be observed. Before a Low Mass it is sufficient to read the antiphon, versicle, response and prayer. They need not be sung.

CELEBRATION OF MASS BY PRIESTS ON RETREAT Rev. Dear Sir,-Will you kindly say, in an early issue of the I. E. RECORD, what is the meaning of priests not saying Mass while on retreat. Ought not the practice be discontinued?


There is no law forbidding priests to say Mass during retreat. But, generally speaking, during a general diocesan retreat it would be inconvenient, if not impossible, to provide for the celebration of many Masses. That is the only reason we know.


REV. DEAR SIR,--I shall be grateful for a reply to the following in the next issue of the I. E. RECORD :

1. The Patrons of a city, and of the diocese in which the city is situated, are an Abbot and Confessor, and a Bishop and Confessor, respectively. The feast of the former is celebrated in the city as a double of the first class with an octave, while that of the latter is celebrated in a similar manner throughout the diocese. Which of these Patrons is to be considered in the city as the 'principalis loci Patronus'?

2. Is an exsequial Mass forbidden in the city on the feast of one Patron and of the other?


1. Both. The Abbot is the principal Patron of the city, as a city; the Bishop is the principal Patron of the city as forming part of the diocese. There is here no question of what is known as a secondary Patron.

2. It is forbidden on both feasts.

1 S.C.R. Decr., n. 1322, ad 3.


2 Appeltern, op. cit., vol. i. p. 293; Wapelhorst, p. 131.

3 Wapelhorst, loc. cit.



« PrécédentContinuer »