This document is important in three ways. Firstly, by using inquisitio for verificatio, the meaning of the latter term is made clear. Secondly, fulmination performed by the Ordinary without waiting for any fresh investigation is valid. And thirdly, the prescribed verification of Apostolic letters is had in substantial completeness, when in addition to the first inquiry the parish priest makes sure of truthfulness in the petition before telling those concerned that the Ordinary has fulminated the dispensation.

Hitherto there has been question chiefly of verifying causes. Is the process required to a like extent and in the sense just explained, for other portions of petitions? No doubt it should be applied to all parts but its omission in regard to none of them, except the causes, has been authoritatively declared fatal to dispensations. For this reason some consider it necessary only for that one portion. Others strongly maintain the opposite view, and point out how the precise impediment is almost as much in need of verification as the precise cause. Nor can parity of reason be here deemed a bad argument, for the legislator, as far as he went, seems to declare what was law, rather than impose a new obligation.

This brings us to the different clauses used in granting dispensations, since by them, in the opinion of many, the question at issue must be mainly decided. It is difficult to see how the phrase "Si preces veritate inniti repereris " can be construed, so as not to imply the necessity of an inquiry extending to the whole supplication. Still, according to several, even this form does not imply that everything, which should of necessity be true, must also of necessity receive verification. But where is the line to be drawn? Cardinal Lambertini,1 who knew the Stylus Curiae so well, expounding the milder clause of the forum internum, “si ita est," requires that more than causes should be verified. His words contain valuable instruction for the confessor:

"Quare, qui literas exequitur omnem curam ac diligentiam impendere debet ut cognascat an verum sit quod Majori Poenitentiario fuit expositum. An res ipsa circumstantiae, et causae, ac rationes ad obtinendam dispensationem prolatae veritati prorsus consentanae sint. Nam ejusmodi executio committitur haud pro mero solum sed pro mixto etiam

1 Inst. Eccl. 87.

foro conscientiae. Quamobrem monere debet eum, qui dispensationem petiit, ut nihil a veritate alienum proferat. Deinde opus est, ut diligenter investiget, utrum revera probentur omnia, quae ille testatus fuerit. Non tamen ulli testes inquirendi sunt, sed illum examinari solum fas est, qui dispensationem impetravit. Pontas censuit jusjurandum elici posse, ut rei veritas magis comprobetur. Hanc tamen sententiam reliqui omnes improbant. Quare, paucis jam superius dicta complectamur, adhibendam ab executore accuratam diligentiam, quam modo ostendimus; aliter irritam fieri dispensationem nisi forte ipse aliunde rei veritatem justamque causam cognoverit. Quodsi confessarius pro certo habeat falsum esse, quod summo Poenitentiario propositum fuit ab exequendo dispensationem abstineat, licet qui ipsam postulavit rei falsitatem tueri contendat, modo tamen sacerdos id non perceperit, cum Poenitentiae sacramentum dispensando administravit: non enim uti licet iis, quae tunc deprehenduntur."

In drawing out our conclusions, it would not be safe to depart without grave reason from the teaching of so great an authority. Hence, the "executor dispensationis" must either institute an inquiry or have "aliunde" sufficient grounds for believing that the supplication is truthful. Secondly, his information or investigation should cover all points mentioned above, "res ipsa, circumstantiae, causae ac rationes," or, in other words, the substance of the whole petition. Thirdly, although particular omissions may leave validity doubtful, the only safe course, ante factum, is to include in one's verification or knowledge everything that the precept regards. And lastly, what is necessary in executing dispensations containing the clause," si ita est,' must certainly be required for those in which "si preces veritate niti repereris" occurs. But there does not seem to be any strong reason for demanding more in the latter case than in the former. In both then knowledge will serve as a substitute for verification properly so called.

How is the "executor" to proceed? Our last quotation is so full on his duties in foro interno as to make comment unnecessary. For the forum externum there is no prescribed method. As has been said already the delegate can use the services of others in the matter of verification, though he himself must fulminate. Extra-judicial information suffices, unless there be one to contradict, or judicial inquiry be ordered. It must practically be extrajudicial where, as in these countries, the municipal law prohibits ecclesiastics from administering oaths for such

1Zitelli, p. 87, seems to hold that "si ita est" does not require verification; but alleges no reason for supposing a change in the stylus curiae.

purposes. A parish priest, however, when he verifies for the forum externum, unlike the confessor, must not depend on the parties concerned. He may rely on trustworthy oral statements or on written evidence of authority, always, however, making account of what diocesan custom or special instructions from the delegate may enjoin.

So far we have dealt with Papal dispensations alone, About those which bishops grant little need be added. They are of two kinds. For bishops dispense either in virtue of their purely delegated faculties or on the strength of quasi-ordinary powers. Dispensations of the latter class are more commonly held to lie within their control, so that verification is required for validity only when made a condition by them. It is otherwise with the exercise of delegated power, for faculties of this kind are given to be used according to the Stylus observed by the authority whence they come. Hence, a parish priest or confessor who receives a mandatum dispensandi from his bishop should be as careful about verification as if he were the commissarius of the Holy See. Besides, it is to be remembered, each bishop may, if he pleases, demand something special in verifying supplications, under pain of not granting the favour asked. As regards the large class of dispensations which Bishops or their vicars fulminate of themselves there need be no difficulty, because the practice is now general of making full inquiry before sending forward the petitions, and seeing that nothing occurs in the meantime to prevent the celebration of marriage.

This brings our remarks on "verificatio" to a close. In them nothing has been said of fulmination as such. On a future occasion we hope to discuss it and the remaining obligations of an "executor dispensationis."

PATRICK O'DONNELL.

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

I.

The Conditions for Duplication.

What are the exact conditions that justify the celebration of two Masses on the same day by the same priest, Christmas Day of course excepted?

There are two conditions required:-1. Necessity, which includes (a) spiritual necessity on the part of the people,

and (6) an insufficient number of priests to meet this want without having recourse to duplication. 2. The leave of the bishop who, after satisfying himself of the necessity, grants the permission in virtue of the Apostolic Indult.

We shall probably best meet the wishes of our correspondent by publishing the following Instruction, dated 12th December, 1862, and taken from the Acta Sanctae Sedis.

For a full exposition of the various circumstances consult also the Instruction on this subject issued by the Propaganda, and published as an Appendix (page 232) to the Maynooth Synod.

CIRCA NORMAS PRAE OCULIS HABENDAS IN CONCEDENDA FACULTATE MISSAM ITERANDI.

Quibus omnibus consideratis facile quis cognoscere potest quid in examen revocari debeat, priusquam facultas iterandi Missam sacerdotibus concedatur. Duo enim ad hanc concedendam debent simul concurrere, necessitas scilicet ex parte populi, et deficientia sacerdotum qui celebrare possint.

Et quod ad necessitatem populi attinet, non considerari cebet necessitas alicujus personae quamvis dignitate fulgentis, sed alicujus populi partis, vel alicujus communitatis qui Missam diebus festis non audirent, sive propter locorum distantiam, sive ob alia impedimenta, nisi plures celebrentur Missae. Item si parochiani ad unam Missam simul non possunt convenire, eo quod diversis locis habitant distantibus ab Ecclesia, et celebrata Missa post modum ipsi venientes postulant aliam Missam celebrari, &c. Maxima vero censetur necessitas ex parte populi, si praeter hujusmodi circumstantias, concurrat etiam parochiarum multiplicitas quae ab uno regantur pastore.

Quod autem attinet ad deficientiam sacerdotum, ad quam prae ceteris attendi debet, ea deficientia non debet esse conficta et veluti praesumpta, ex eo quod parochus ratione sui officii debeat per se applicare secundam Missam pro populo, ubi duas regat paroecias; vel ex eo quod ratione sui officii debeat iis qui ad audientiam Missam recedunt catechismum et fidei mysteria explanare; vel ex eo quod non possit ob tenues proventus eleemosynam solvere alteri Missam celebranti; cum nimis difficile sit, hac reali deficientia redituum probata, deesse alia extraordinaria media quibus hisce indulgentiis fiat satis. Neque censeri debet deesse alium sacerdotum, quia alter sacerdos qui adest, licet possit, nolit tamen celebrare ad populi commoditatem. In hujusmodi enim adjunctis potest Episcopus hunc alterum sacerdotem cogere, ut ad populi commoditatem celebret. Quare exclusa hac conficta et praesumpta alterius sacerdotis deficientia, ad cohenestendam Missae iterationem requiritur vera deficientia sacerdotis, qui alteram Missam celebrare valeat. 12th Dec., 1882.

II.

Benediction with the Ciborium.

REV. SIR,-The other evening I went into a Church where devotions were going on. The Tabernacle was opened, and the Pyxis, covered with its veil, was exposed within it, and after the prayer, Deus qui nobis, was sung, the Priest took out the Pyxis and gave Benediction with it. This being to me a new practice` I made inquiries and was told Cavalieri approved of it.

May I ask (a) is this practice in keeping with the Rubrics or Decrees, and if the answer is affirmative, please say (b) may a Priest do this as often as he thinks it conducive to the people's devotion, or does he require the Bishop's permission? SACERDOS.

(a) Yes; this is a recognised form of giving Benediction. (b) The Bishop's permission is required for this as it is for Benediction with the Monstrance.

When Benediction is given with the Ciborium, the following is the ceremony to be observed:

The Altar is prepared as for the ordinary Benediction. The Priest is vested in surplice and stole, and, if convenient, with cope also. He is attended by two acolytes and a thurifer. At the Altar he observes the usual reverences, ascends the predella, opens the Tabernacle, genuflects, and descends the steps, leaving the door of the Tabernacle wide open, and the covered Ciborium visible within. He now puts incense into the thurible and incenses the Blessed Sacrament more solito. Then follow the usual prayers and chant. After the Tantum ergo, the Priest puts on the humeral veil, ascends to the predella, genuflects, takes out the Ciborium, lays it on the corporal of the Altar, takes it in the left hand by the nodus, covers it with ends of the humeral veil, and then turning round gives the Benediction with the Ciborium thus covered. After the Benediction he lays the Ciborium on the Altar, genuflects, puts off the humeral veil, rises, places the Ciborium in the Tabernacle, genuflects, closes the Tabernacle, descends, and returns to the sacristy with the usual reverences.

III.

May honoraria be received in Tribunali?

In the Statuta Diocesana (p. 84) we read:-" et districte mandamus ut nihil, sub quocunque praetextu, in Tribunali Poenitentiae accipiatur." Can that enactment have any possible reference to the authorized honoraria which the faithful are accustomed to present immediately after confession?

Consult I. E. RECORD, 3rd Series, vol. v., p. 196 (March, 1884), where this question has been already answered.