sation were accordingly sent to his parochus, none but the latter could give it valid effect. In every case the distinction between commissions sub nomine proprio and sub nomine officii deserves careful attention. So far there has been question almost exclusively of the forum externum. According to modern usage the delegate for forum internum, by the words "Discreto viro confessori ex approbatis ab Ordinario," or "Discreto viro confessario N," or, "Tibi confessario ab oratoribus electo," which are found on the outer face of commissions, must be approved for hearing confessions at the time. and in the place of fulmination.1 If approved only for men, obviously he is not competent to execute dispensations intended for women. The older form, "Discreto viro confessori magistro in theologia vel Decretorum doctori ex approbatis ab Ordinario per latorem praesentium ad infrascripta specialiter eligendo," is now used for only a few parts of the Church. Such inscription when it occurs limits the commission to those who have secured the degree, "in aliqua publica academia presso proprioque sensu intellecta," or to members of Religious Orders, approved as above mentioned, and specially deputed by their Superiors to exercise this privilege. The first form is that generally used in inscribing Apostolic Letters pro foro interno. The second or third is employed when Propaganda or the S. Penitentiary is requested to depute a specially-named confessor. In this case, it is always well to ask likewise for liberty to apply to any other approved priest for the purpose, lest the petitioners should come to desire a change. Such permission is implied in the first and ordinary form, whether the words, "per latores eligendo" occur or not. A priest, who sees that he has not the qualifications required on the exterior of the document should not open it. But mere opening of the Rescript by one who cannot or will not give it effect, does not prevent valid fulmination by another competent and willing to act. Nay, even a confessor who has pronounced the document to be obreptitious or subreptitious, or for any such reasons refused to communicate the favour, and afterwards finds he 1 Zitelli, p. 85, &c.; Dens, p. 532; De Burgt, p. 72, &c. has erred, can retract his decision and grant the dispensation.1 In foro externo, on the contrary, if the delegate observing the form of his mandate, pronounces that the dispensation is not to be given, "quia literas reputat subreptitias vel obreptitias vel sibi non commissas," he neither can recall his decision nor proceed to fulmination. When, however, he has failed to observe the proper form, according to most canonists, it is still competent for him, or his successor to discharge the commission. This distinction applies also to invalid fulmination itself. If invalidity be due to the fact that the delegate did not observe the form of his mandate, he can take up the matter anew. But, the form once observed, the decree, as far as he is concerned, though ipso jure null, is irremediable quoad substantiam, and practically all the Ordinary can do is set forth in the following words of Sanchez, whom Feije1 quotes in this connection: 3 "At cum sententia illa, utpote fovens peccatum matrimonii male contracti, aut male contrahendi, non transierit in rem judicatam, poterit in quantum Ordinarius causam iterum assumere, et impedire matrimonium ineundum, vel jam initum dissolvere : non cognoscens, nec judicans de prioris sententiae viribus, quam ut delegatus pronunciavit: id enim solius est Pontificis delegantis; sed habebit se, ac si nulla esset sententia, et cognoscet de matrimonio contracto. validum sit, necne; vel an possit contrahi, quemadmodum potest cognoscere de quovis alio matrimonio malé inito." 5 In reference to sub-delegation, the Commissarius need have no difficulty about consigning to another person of trust the duty of verifying the petition. But in the absence of special leave, this is the only portion of his office that can be discharged otherwise than by himself immediately. Anyone acting under sub-delegation should be careful not to exceed the limits within which his services are confined. The S. Penitentiary retains its dispensing powerspro foro interno during vacancies in the Papacy, and hence there can be no objection to fulminating its letters on such occasions. But as the A. Datary does not enjoy this privilege, there used to be some controversy as to whether 1 Cf. Feije, p. 721, Sanchez, L. viii., Disp. 27, n. 4, &c.; De Angelis, Praelectiones juris canonici, L. i., Tit. xxix., p. 141. 3 L. 8, disp. 27, n. 39. * Feije, ibid. + P. 722. Rescripts pro foro externo, granted and not fulminated before the Pope's death, could be "executed" during the interval. It was, however, decided many years ago, as Feije and others testify, that all Letters of Dispensation, whether coming from the A. Datary or S. Penitentiary, can be fulminated, irrespectively of the Pontiff's demise, provided in every case that they granted in full official form before the occurrence of that event. This holds though the res be still integra. But whether dispensations, given by Bishops in forma commissoria in virtue of an Apostolic Indult, can be executed, after the period of their faculties has ceased or death has occurred, remains a matter for inquiry. Although there is still some weight of opinion on the opposite side, it would certainly seem reasonable to infer that the rule for Papal dispensations might be followed in the case of episcopal commissions also. Of course "si res non sit integra," there is no difficulty about finishing the work. But even "re adhuc integra" and notwithstanding the renewal of the Indult in favour of the Bishop or Vicar Capitular, or its continuance by a special provision in the hands of the person who had been Vicar General, it might press hard on the petitioners to be compelled to wait or even to renew their application. Besides the reason for what authors hold in regard to Papal dispensations has its full force where Bishops die before fulmination. In both events the delegate is an "executor necessarius," and therefore, in both events also the gratia is a gratia facta, and should have corresponding rights.3 We must, however, say that for the present the safer opinion should be followed if the period of an Indult has expired, except in some case of great urgency. After these remarks on fulmination we are free to continue the executio dispensationis," at the point where we left off last month. Our next question then shall be: How is a dispensation fulminated? PATRICK O'DONNELL. 1 Feije. p. 719. 2 Cf. Feije, p. 545, Caillaud, T. 2, n. 320. 8 Cf. Craisson, vol. i., pp. 43-4, nn. 71-3. Reiffenstuel, L. i, T. 3, Praelectiones, S. Sulpt. v. i., n. 305. De Angelis, L. i., T. 3, p. 73, Zitelli, p. 98, &c. § 10, nn. 253-258. LITURGY. VOTIVE MASSES. VI.-The Votive Masses at the end of the Missal after the twelve first. These Masses, 13 in number, may be found without any difficulty at the end of the Missal. None of them require any special explanation except the Missa pro sponso et sponsa. We purpose in this paper to touch upon all the questions that occur to us regarding this Mass. The Nuptial Benediction consists of the special prayers given in this Mass pro Sponso et Sponsa after the Pater noster and the Benedicamus Domino, or Ite Missa est. It is necessary to bear this in mind. The Marriage Contract itself is not the Nuptial Benediction; nor are the verses Confirma hoc, &c., which are always said after the blessing and putting on of the ring; but those prayers and those only which the Missal prescribes in the Mass pro Sponso et Sponsa. (1) Is there an obligation to say Mass when a Marriage has been celebrated? The words of the Rubric are: "Sponsi veniant ad Ecclesiam benedictionem accepturi." De Herdt quoting Barrufaldus and Cavalieri, says, there is an obligation sub veniali. But the contrary is implied in a decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition (Aug. 31, 1831, which see in RECORD. vol. iii., p. 506): "Emi ac Rmi. DD. decreverunt hortandos esse eosdem conjuges Catholicos, qui benedictionem sui Matrimonii non obtinuerunt, ut eam primo quoque tempore petant." When the Congregation, well aware of the doubt that existed with regard to this matter, uses the technical verb hortari, it plainly wishes to declare that, though it is of the greatest importance that the Benediction should be received, there yet is no sin in omitting to receive it. But if the Nuptial Benediction is to be given, it must be given intra Missam. "His The Rubric of the Ritual is clear on this point:expletis, si benedicendae sint nuptiae Parochus Missam 1 Cap. 1., n. 16, pro Sponso et Sponsa, ut in Missali Romano, celebret, servatis omnibus quae ibi praescribuntur." The Rubric of the Missal is equally clear:-"Si benedictio nuptiarum facienda sit die Dominica dicatur Missa de Dominica," &c. O'Kane quotes Cavalieri for the opinion that the Nuptial Benediction may by the authority of the Bishop be separated from Mass. He adds that a custom for this effect prevails in some countries, e.g. in England. He also cites the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (1st Sept., 1838.) It is true that this decree allows the Nuptial Benediction to be given out of Mass: but it was afterwards revoked by several decrees (e.g. 23rd June, 1853), and the Nuptial Benediction was ordered to be given in Mass according to the Rubrics. The decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition, already quoted, leaves no room for doubt. "Infra tamen Missae celebrationem." In no case would the Priest who says the Mass, be obliged to offer his intention for the bride and bridegroom, unless he has received an honorarium. There are cases in which the Rubrics themselves forbid the Nuptial Benediction to be given, and therefore the Mass to be said. These are:-1°. If it be the second marriage of the bridegroom, though only the first of the bride. The Rubric, however, allows the Benediction to be given in this case, if there be a custom for doing so. 2°. A widow, who at her previous marriage received the Benediction, is not to receive it again, though the bridegroom has not been previously married; "Sed viduae nuptias non benedicat, etiamsi ejus vir nunquam uxorem duxerit."4 We have said: "A widow, who at her previous marriage received the Benediction;" because the sentence which we have quoted is to be interpreted by a preceding sentence in the same Rubric: "Caveat etiam Parochus ne, quando conjuges in primis nuptiis benedictionem acceperint, eos in secundis benedicat." It is plain that it is not the 1 Cap. 11, n. 4. "In ea (Missa Votiva pro Sponso et Sponsa) assignata Benedictio juxta Rubricas non est impertienda nisi in Missa." Quando impertienda est Benedictio omnino servetur Rubrica Missalis." 66 8 Cap. 1, n. 15. 4 Ibid. |