the church of St. Assournida. Nor is there an inherent improbability in the opinion that the church of St. Hugh, in the adjoining parish, was that of his brother St. Aidus.

There can be no doubt that St. Colga erected not merely a church but also a monastery at Kilcolgan. Being "head of a certain Church," could simply mean that he ruled a community in connection with that Church; and this, we are assured, was a position which he occupied "per multos annos." Besides, we find he is expressly styled Abbot of Kilcolgan by the learned author of the "Aeta Sanctorum Hibernia."

It

It is not easy to ascertain with certainty the exact site of St. Colga's Church and Monastery. I have little doubt, however, that the difficulty arises from the fact that its site is occupied by a dismantled Protestant church. stood within the grounds of the late E. St. George, of Tyrone, Esq., about half a mile south of the present village of Kilcolgan. The approach is by a splendid avenue of ancient trees. A close inspection of this modern though ruined structure, enables one to see that a great portion of the eastern gable is very ancient. Carved mullions and fragments of tracery may be discovered in the most incongruous positions beneath the mortar of the modern masonry. The moss-grown mounds around reveal on examination masses of ruins, and here and there a gravestone, beneath which the dead are at rest for centuries. All these facts indicate the original character of the place. Local traditions confirm those impressions, and tell us how a family that abandoned the faith of their fathers sought to destroy every vestige of this sacred memorial of a glorious past. The unenlightened bigotry which such an effort reveals has fortunately failed in its purpose; and the unsightly ruin by which the spot is desecrated shall be remembered only as a satirical memorial of the failure.

The site was a pleasing one. Even before the extensive plantings around the adjoining mansions of Kilcornan and Tyrone brough the scenery there into harmony with the tastes of our time, the general features of the landscape were attractive. But how unlike St. Colga's late home at Iona Here, indeed, was the "dark blue " of the ocean; but within the arms of those sheltering bays its hoarse murmurs were hushed to rest; and the foam of the broken billows no longer flecked his cowl as he recalled by the Mairee shore the lessons which Columba taught him by the surfbeaten cliffs of Iona.

The history of the fruitful years which St. Colga spent as "Head of the Church in his country which he loved" is unfortunately lost to us. The date of his death we do not even know with certainty. There can, however, be little doubt that it was of the sixth, or at the beginning of the seventh century. Though some would fix his feast for the 20th February, we do not think that the authority of our Martyrologies can be fairly cited in favour of such an opinion.

J. A. FAHEY.

CONN

MISSA DE REQUIEM.

YONNECTED with the subject of the Requiem Mass is a number of questions, the discussion of which in English might prove not uninteresting to some readers of the RECORD. In the present paper, we intend to consider, as fully as the limited space at our disposal will permit, two of these questions, viz.: (a) What is the difference in point of efficacy between a Requiem Mass and a Mass of the Day, when each is offered for the souls in purgatory? (b) What are the nature and extent of that efficacy in their regard? Those who may desire a more complete theological treatment of the efficacy of the Mass than that involved in the answers to the questions proposed have only to recur to former numbers' of the RECORD, where the subject is so fully treated by Very Rev. W. J. Walsh, D.D.

Theologians agree in teaching, that there is no substantial difference as to efficacy between a Requiem Mass and an ordinary Mass of the Day, when both are applied to the relief of the souls in purgatory; for in each case we have the same Adorable Victim, the same Great High Priest officiating, the same ministerial functions exercised in the oblation of the Sacrifice, and offered, as is supposed, for the same ends. Though, as is thus clear, the two kinds of Mass are substantially identical, they admit an accidental difference arising entirely from the nature of the prayers peculiar to each. In the Requiem Mass we have special prayers for the dead, which are not found in Masses of the

1 See I. E. RECORD (Third Series), vol. 3, No. 12; vol. 4, No. 4; vol. 4, No. 8.

living. These prayers are approved by the Church and said in her name, and, consequently, as the prayers of Christ's well-beloved Spouse they have for the purpose, for which they are offered, an efficacy that is independent of the spiritual condition of the minister, and are necessarily acceptable to Almighty God. They can have an additional efficacy for the dead derivable from the devotion with which they are recited by the priest; but this latter efficacy, depending on an uncertain condition, viz., the sanctity of the minister, must of necessity be a variable quantity: in some cases it may be very considerable, while in others it may be inconsiderable, or entirely disappear. It is true, no doubt, that the prayers of each kind of Mass are approved by the Church, and have, therefore, an efficacy that is independent of the piety of the minister, but the prayers used in Masses of the living, as far as they differ from Requiem Masses, are not applied to the souls in purgatory in the name of the Church, but are offered for some other distinct purpose, as intimated by the words in which they are expressed. Hence it follows, that Requiem Masses have for the dead a peculiar accidental efficacy, not attached to Masses of the living when offered for the same end. This view of the relative efficacy of the Requiem Mass and Mass of the living is clearly expressed in the following words of St. Thomas: "Ex parte sacrificii missa aequaliter prodest defuncto de quocumque dicatur: ex parte tamen orationum magis prodest illa in qua sunt orationes ad hoc determinatae." The peculiar accidental efficacy, which a Requiem Mass possesses for the relief of the dead, must of necessity be small, as compared to the substantial efficacy which it has in common with a Mass of the living; still viewed by itself, this special efficacy may be considerable, and of great assistance to the poor souls in purgatory.

From this consideration it follows, that when we have to say Mass for deceased persons, it would in all cases be desirable to say the suitable Requiem Mass, when such is permitted by the Rubrics. As to the cases in which there is an obligation of doing so, very little room for doubt or difference of opinion can exist, as we have on the matter a number of authoritative decisions from which they can be easily inferred. The first of these to which I will refer is one emanating from Alexander VII., Aug. 5th, 1662, which we find printed at the beginning of the Roman Missal, and in which it is declared that on doubles and on other occasions,

an

when a private Requiem Mass is prohibited by the Rubrics, a priest, who is bound to say Mass for a deceased person, satisfies his obligation by saying the Mass of the day. This decision, as is clear from the words in which it is conveyed, covers two cases, viz., (a) that in which the kind of Mass to be said is not specified, and about which, therefore, there can plainly be no difficulty, and (b) that, in which a Requiem Mass is distinctly requested and promised. In this latter case, though there might be per se obligation of saying the promised Requiem Mass, and consequently, of waiting till it should be permitted by the Rubrics, that obligation is declared by Alexander VII, not to exist. In issuing the decree referred to, the Supreme Pontiff acted either as Supreme Legislator; dispensing, in the plenitude of his power, or, perhaps to speak more accurately, as Doctor of the Universal Church interpreting with authority the presumed pious intentions of those who solicited the Requiem Mass. Such an interpretation would be but fair and reasonable, for, on the one hand, it may be assumed that no good Catholic is willing to have the Rubrics of the Church violated by the celebration of a special kind of Mass on occasions when such is not permitted; while, on the other, the deceased, for whose benefit the Mass is to be celebrated, if suffering in purgatory, should be deprived of immediate assistance by waiting until a Requiem Mass is permitted. Hence, it is clear, that to satisfy an obligation of saying a private Mass for the dead, it never becomes necessary to wait till the Rubrics permit a Requiem Mass; neither would the prospect of such Mass be of itself a sufficient consideration to justify a priest in deferring the fulfilment of his obligation beyond the period, as otherwise assigned by theologians. On this subject we have another decree from Clement X., but as its object and extent are the same as those of the decree of Alexander VII., it becomes unnecessary to do more than refer to it. These decisions have a practical bearing on countries, where, as in Ireland, the number of doubles so much predominates, and where, as a consequence, according to the general provisions of the Rubrics, the occasions, on which a private Requiem Mass may be said, are so very few.

The next point we have to consider is the extent of our obligation when we have to say Mass for a deceased person on semi-doubles or on occasions when a Requiem Mass is permitted. There are two cases in which we are bound to say a Requiem Mass. The first of

these is, when the kind of Mass to be said is distinctly requested and promised, for, according to a decree of S. R. C. 1761, "the expressed will of those who ask for a special kind of Mass should be complied with, provided it be reasonable, neither did the Supreme Pontiff dispense in such obligations;" but in the case under consideration the expressed will of those who ask for a Requiem Mass is supposed to be reasonable, seeing that compliance with it is compatible with strict adherence to the Rubrics, and does not imply the necessity of deferring the Mass for the deceased. If any delay became necessary from Rubrical considerations, then the case is distinctly legislated for by the decree of Alexander VII.,already referred to in detail. By a Papal Indult of 1862, the priests of Ireland have the privilege of saying a private Requiem Mass "praesente cadavere" on double festivals; and therefore a priest, who is asked by a person giving a honorarium to say a Requiem Mass, is bound to do so on those occasions privileged by the Indult. The second of the cases above referred to is that in which a priest promises to say Mass at a privileged altar; for in answer to a question sent to S.C.I. it is stated that a priest who has to say Mass at a privileged altar is bound to use black vestments whenever a Requiem Mass is allowed, and that he does not fulfil his obligation by saying the Mass of the day. The reason of this decision is clear, for the obvious intention of the person asking for Mass at a privileged altar is to gain the indulgences attached to its celebration at such an altar; but as appears from various Papal Constitutions those indulgences cannot be gained unless a Requiem Mass is celebrated, when permitted by the Rubrics. On other occasions the indulgences may be gained by saying the Mass of the day, as appears from a decision of S.R.C. given 22nd July, 1848. As we have already seen, the Mass of the living and Requiem Mass admit of no substantial difference, hence if in either of the two above-mentioned cases a priest receives a honorarium for a Requiem Mass, but says the Mass corresponding to the Office of the day, he is not bound to restitution, seeing that he has substantially fulfilled his obligation; he is, however, according to the general opinion of theologians, guilty of at least venial

sin.

In other cases besides the two mentioned, a priest is justified in saying the Mass of the day for deceased persons,