another fact. The principal effect of this profession, according to the decree itself, was to render the person who had made it a participator in all the indulgences, suffrages, and favours which are enjoyed by professed religious when dying. Now, Canon 567, § 1, declares that novices enjoy all the privileges and spiritual favours granted to the institute, and that, if death overtakes them, they have a right to the same suffrages which are prescribed for professed members. The continuance, therefore, of the privilege contained in the decree Spirituali consolationi seemed to be practically useless.

Notwithstanding these considerations, some canonists maintained the contrary view. They pointed out that this decree was merely a permissive law, and, as such, did not come within the scope of Canon 6, n. 6. The validity of this reasoning, however, is very questionable. A permissive law is yet a law in the true sense of the term, and Canon 6, n. 6, makes no distinction.

These differences of opinion caused considerable practical difficulties ; with the result that the Congregation of Religious received many requests for an authoritative solution. The issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for April last contains the Congregation's decision: it declares that the decree Spirituali consolationi is still in force; so that, for the future, there can be no doubt that novices and postulants who are in grave danger of death may make their religious profession. This privilege, however, in accordance with the decree and with this recent decision, is circumscribed by the following conditions:

1. The novitiate must have been canonically begun.

2. The Superior who admits the novice to profession or consecration, besides the higher Superior mentioned by the constitutions, can be also the Superior who actually governs the monastery or the house for novices.

3. The formula for profession is the same as that used in the institute outside a case of sickness; and the vows, if expressed in words, should have neither a temporary nor perpetual qualification.

4. One who makes a profession, consecration, or promise of this kind will be a participator in all the indulgences, suffrages, and favours which religious truly professed obtain when they are dying; such a one will also be given a plenary indulgence and remission of his sins in the form of a jubilee.

5. This profession, consecration, or promise, besides the favours just mentioned, produces absolutely no other effect. Hence :—

(a) If the novices die after such a profession, consecration, or promise the institute cannot lay claim to any of their rights or property;

(b) If they recover before the novitiate has expired, they are in the same condition as if they had not made their profession; and, therefore, (i) they can freely return to the world, if they so desire; and (ii) the Superiors can dismiss them; (iii) they must complete the whole period of the novitiate prescribed in the institute, even though it exceeds a year; (iv) when this period has been completed, if they persevere, they must make a new profession, consecration, or promise.

In view of Canon 567, § 1, as we have already pointed out, this privilege has not now the importance that it had before the promulgation of the Code. As, however, it carries with it a plenary indulgence, t is untrue to say that it is of no practical value.

Our readers will remember that there have been other modifications, or at least apparent modifications, of Canon 6, n. 6. In March, 1918, the Holy Office declared that the regulations regarding Modernism, although they are not mentioned in the Code, still remain in force; and similarly the Congregation for Religious, in June, 1919, stated that the decree Inter reliquas, which deals with religious who have to undergo military service, is still obligatory, even though the Code makes no reference to it, either explicit or implicit. In both these cases, however, the respective Congregations took care to point out that the regulations in question, being of a temporary character, made to cope with a passing emergency, were not really laws in the strict sense and hence could not be inserted in the Code, and were not abrogated by Canon 6, n. 6. These declarations, therefore, did not really modify Canon 6 at all. Can the same thing be said of the present one? Well, the Congregation itself states that the decree Spirituali consolatione is still in force, but gives no explanation of its natural relation to Canon 6, n. 6. Certainly, the theory put forward in the other two cases is not applicable: the regulations regarding the profession of novices when in serious danger of death are not of their nature temporary. As we have already pointed out, the fact that this decree is merely a permissive law seems a quite insufficient reason for saying that it was not abrogated. Personally, we think that this declaration of the Congregation of Religious constitutes a real modification of Canon 6, n. 6.

III

AN ACTION For Calumny INSTITUTED BY A PRIEST AGAINST HIS BISHOP The June issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis publishes a decision of the Rota which contains some points of much practical importance. The question was an incidental one, the point at issue being the competence of the Rota in a certain matter, but the facts of the case, the preliminary discussion, and the reasons for the sentence touch upon matters of more general interest than the sentence itself. We shall summarize the main features of interest in the whole case.

A certain priest, a Canon of the Cathedral Chapter, was suspended by his Bishop for two days. In addition to absence from choir the Bishop mentioned as a further cause of the suspension' grave matters of which I have had many times to admonish you.' The Canon had recourse to the Congregation of the Council, and asked to have the suspension declared invalid and to have the Bishop obliged to specify and prove the ‘grave matters' referred to in the decree of suspension. The petition was rejected, but the Canon made a further application to the same body. Again the Congregation of the Council dismissed his complaint and warned him to take care that in future his conduct did not deserve the reproof of the Bishop.

The Canon now sought to obtain redress from the Rota. He instituted before this tribunal an action for damages on account of calumny, the alleged calumny consisting in the Bishop's reference in his decree to those grave matters' already mentioned, which reference had become known not merely to the Congregation of the Council, but also to the public generally.

Before it could directly take up this action, the Rota had first of all to determine whether it was competent to do so, and it decided that it was not. The reasons upon which this sentence is based are very instruc tive. It is pointed out, of course, that in contentious or civil trials Bishops are subject to the Rota,1 with the exceptions mentioned in Canon 1572, § 2,2 about which there is no question in the present dispute. Bishops, however, may be considered under various aspect. —as judges, as administrators, as the subjects of rights qua Bishops, and as private individuals. Grievances against the judicial sentences of Bishops must be dealt with by the higher tribunals, in accordance with the ordinary rules governing appeal; complaints against their administrative acts are subject to the jurisdiction of the Congregations; litigation concerning Bishops, considered as the subjects of rights or as private individuals, comes within the competence of the Rota. In the present case the Canon's grievance arises from an administrative act of the Bishop, viz., his decree of suspension; and, therefore, it must be considered by a Congregation aud not by the Rota.

The second reason for the sentence is based on the following regu lation of the Normae peculiares: Quaestione semel instituta penes Con gregationem aliquam administrationis ac disciplinae tramite, et a partibus admisso aut saltem non recusato hoc agendi modo, his jam non licet eadem de causa actionem stricte judicialem instituere. Eoque minus deliberata re atque ad sententiam deducta, fas erit hoc agere.'

The question on which the Canon now seeks a decision of the Rota is really the same as that which he formerly submitted to the Congre gation of the Council-his right to have made known to him the grave matters' mentioned in the decree of suspension, in order that he migh prove their falsity, and thus clear himself in the eyes of the public According to the regulation just quoted, this question, because of it previous submission to the Congregation of the Council, even though i were not otherwise excluded, is outside the competence of the Rota.

For these reasons the Rota decided that it was incompetent to dea with the case, and it ordered all the acts of the process to be transmitte to the Congregation of the Council. The most important practical poin

1 Canon 1557, § 2: Tribunalibus vero Sedis Apostolicae reservatu judicare 1°. Episcopos residentiales in contentiosis, salvo praescripto Car 1572, § 2.'

:

2 'Si vero agatur de juribus aut bonis temporalibus Episcopi aut mensa vel Curiae dioecesanae, controversia dirimenda deferatur vel, Episcopo cor sentiente, ad dioecesanum tribunal collegiale quod constat officiali et duobu judicibus synodalibus antiquioribus, vel ad judicem immediate superiorem.' Cap. iii. n. 10.

to remember in connexion with the decision is that priests who think they are aggrieved by administrative acts of their Bishops must seek redress from a Congregation-generally speaking the Congregation of the Council-not from the Rota. The Holy Father himself, if he is petitioned, may, indeed, commit a case of this kind to the Rota—we know of instances in which he has done so-but apart from such commission the Rota is incompetent. It may be well to note, too, that, under the Code legislation, an Archbishop also, in regard to the administrative acts of his suffragans, is incompetent.

THE ORDINATION OF RELIGIOUS

REV. DEAR SIR,-Does the second part of Canon 976 bind religious as well as the first part? I was under the impression that it did, but recently I noticed, quoted in an ecclesiastical publication, the decree Auctis Admodum of Leo XIII, whereby religious may be ordained when they have completed their third year's theological course. The decree was quoted as seemingly still valid. Is it so ?

STUDENS.

For the convenience of our readers generally it will be well to quote Canon 976, §§ 1 and 2, and the corresponding section of the decree Auctis Admodum :

CANON 976.

'§ 1. Nemo sive saecularis sive religiosus ad primam tonsuram promoveatur ante inceptum cursum theologicum.

§ 2. Firmo praescripto Canon 975; subdiaconatus ne conferatur, nisi exeunte tertio cursus theologici anno; diaconatus, nisi incepto quarto anno; presbyteratus, nisi post medietatem ejusdem quarti anni.'

AUCTIS ADMODUM.

12. VI. Professi tum votorum solemnium tum simplicium ab Ordinariis locorum ad Sacros Ordines non admittantur, nisi praeter alia a jure statuta, testimoniales litteras exhibeant, quod saltem per annum sacrae theologiae operam dederint, si agatur de subdiaconatu, ad minus per biennium, si de diaconatu, et quoad presbyteratum, saltem per triennium, praemisso tamen regulari aliorum studiorum curriculo.'

There is no doubt that the second paragraph of Canon 976 applies to religious as well as the first. The law itself makes no distinction, and, Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Consequently, in accordance with Canon 6, n. 1, this section of the decree Auctis Admodum, in so far as it is in opposition to the paragraph, is abrogated. Hence, religious cannot now be promoted to the priesthood until after the middle of the fourth year of their theological course.

J. KINANE.

LITURGY

DOUBTS REGARDING THE DIRECTIONS OF AN ORDO AND THE USE OF FOLDED CHASUBLES

REV. DEAR SIR,-May I trouble you for answers to the following questions:

I. This year the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost occurred on the 22nd July, the feast of St. Mary Magdalene. Our Ordo directs: 'Com. S. Maria Magdal. in L. et M. Prop. . . . Ev. S. Mariae Magdal. in fine. Is this correct? Why is the Last Gospel that of St. M. Magdalene?

II. The Tenth Sunday after Pentecost occurred on the 29th July, the feast of St. Martha, and also of St. Felix and Companions, Martyrs. The Ordo directions read: Dom X post Pent. (1 Aug.)

·

Off. Dom. Com. S. Virg. SS. Mart et Suffrag. in L. . . . In M. Prop. 2, or SS. Mart. 3 A cunctis, . Ev. S. Marthae in fine. . . .' Should not St. Martha be commemorated in the Mass as well, and should not the reading be: In M. Prop. 2 or S. Marthae 3 SS. Mart.'? Again, why the Last Gospel of St. Martha ?-all the more extraordinary in this case in view of previous directions re prayers in Mass.

Ad

III. For the Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost, 2nd September, and Feast of St. Stephen (C.), the Ordo reads: Off. Dom. L. Com. S. Conf. et Suffrag.. In M. Prop. 2, or A cunctis, 3 ad lib. . Is not this an obvious misprint? Should not the reading be, In M. Prop. 2 or S. Conf. 8 A cunctis'? Does the decree S.R.C., 18th June, 1899, n. 4031 ad V. apply to a case such as this In other words, is a priest bound to say the three prayers in the Mass as prescribed above?

IV. In the I. E. RECORD, June, 1922, you very kindly answered the following question: At the Exposition on Passion Sunday may the Deacon and Subdeacon wear the violet dalmatic and tunic?' My question, however, was worded thus: At the Mass of Exposition on Passion Sunday, may the Deacon and Subdeacon wear the (violet) dalmatic and tunic'? This question referred to the Mass, not to the actual Exposition, and it referred to the vestments, not the colour of the vestments. As in the case of a ordinary High Mass on Passion Sunday, are the Deacon and Sub deacon bound to wear the folded chasubles' prescribed by the rubrics; or, are they permitted to wear the dalmatic and tuni (violet, of course) 'because of the solemnity of the occasion'? SACERDOS.

Before replying to the queries of our correspondent, it may be wel