Cross. The Sacrifice of the Last Supper, as all the other actions of our Saviour's mortal life, had attached to it an excellence and meritorious efficacy that were independent of that of the Cross. Thus it is clear that the Sacrifice of the Mass differs from the Sacrifice of the Last Supper in this, that whereas the latter had both a meritorious and applicatory efficacy, the former, at least as far as we are concerned, possesses only an efficacy to apply the merits of the Cross.

2. The second question, as we understand it, includes two, which must be clearly distinguished in order to avoid any confusion in the answer. (a) Why did our Saviour offer Sacrifice under the appearance of bread and wine? (b) Why did He select the night before His passion as the time of its institution?

(a) There were many reasons why Christ should offer Sacrifice under the appearance of bread and wine; the principal however is that set forth in the words of the Council of Trent, referred to by our Correspondent, viz:that He might perform His chief sacerdotal function, which is the oblation of Sacrifice, according to the rite of Melchisedech, and thus be a Priest according to his order in fulfilment of the words of prophecy.

(b) It was most natural, that our Divine Lord should have reserved the institution of the Sacrifice of the Mass till the night before His Passion; for, as it was to be His greatest Gift and Legacy of love to men, it was right that its institution should be surrounded with all that solemnity which the circumstances of the last evening of His mortal life were calculated to impart. T. G.

LITURGY.
I.

Offerings at Corpse-houses, how are they to be understood as

Do the Offerings at corpse-houses involve the obligation of saying Mass for the departed soul? and if so, are there as many Masses to be said as there are authorized Honoraria comprised in the Offerings?

Whether there is an obligation on every priest who attends at the funeral where the Offerings are made, to say Mass for the departed soul, depends on the under

standing between the donors and the priests. The alms may be given for the Office, funeral Mass, and attendance at the funeral, without any further obligation. The occasion is availed of by the people to contribute to the support of their pastors. The custom of the priests of the diocese, which is of course known to and sanctioned by the bishop, is the best interpretation of the understanding between priests and people as to the object of these Offerings.

It is, we believe, quite ce rtainthat a priest is not bound to say as many Masses for the departed soul, as there are Honoraria measured by the recognised diocesan tax, in the share he has received of the Offerings.

II.

Is Alleluia added to versicle of B. Virgin in paschal time? Kindly say should the Alleluia be added in paschal time to the versi le and response of the B. Virgin when sung at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament? SUBSCRIBER.

Consult I. E. RECORD, 3rd series, vol. ii., page 551 Sept. 1881), where we have treated this question.

III.

When the 9th Lesson of a Commemorated Feast is omitted.

Please state what is the rule for the omission of the 9th Lesson when a feast is commemorated, ex. gr. St. Valentine on 14th February, and St. Paul on the 15th. E. K.

The 9th Lesson of a commemorated feast is read except, 1o, on Sundays which have a 9th responsorium; 2o, when the Homily of the Sunday, Feria, or Vigil is to be read; 3o, when the office has only three Lessons, as in the Octave of Easter or Pentecost; 4°, within the Octave of Corpus Christi, when the office is de infra Octavam or de dominica infra Octavam; 5o, when the Lesson of the Simple Feast is not special and historical; 6o, on doubles of the first class.

The 5th cause explains why the 9th Lesson was not of St. Valentine; and the omission in the case of St. Paul, the first hermit, comes under the first exception.

IV.

Decrees relating to the New Votive Offices.

It was decided by the S. R. C. on the 23rd of May, 1835, in una NAMURCEM, that a Votive Office granted as

a privilege for a dies non impeditu, and consequently one which a Priest would be free to substitute for the Office of the day, ceases to be a matter of choice and becomes obligatory, if by order of the Bishop it is assigned in the Ordo recitandi Officii to the dies non impedita.

On the 5th of last July, 1884, the Congregation was questioned as to the bearing of this decree on the New Votive Offices; and they replied that the New Votive Offices will be obligatory for choral recitation if once formally adopted as a substitute for the Ferials and Simples by the Choir with the approbation of the Bishop; but that for private recitation the Priest will be free to choose between the Votives and Ferials or Simples.

This last answer suggested another inquiry, whether the private recitation even of Votive Offices formerly granted was included in the decree of 1835. And this point the Congregation decides in the decree we quote, declaring that the private recitation was included-and that the case of the New Votive Offices, in regard to which freedom of choice is allowed, is special and peculiar.

The Congregation also decides in the second decree we quote, that the Compiler of the Ordo recitandi Officii may add a special direction on dies non impeditae, reminding the Priests of their privilege of choosing one of the New Votive Office.

R. D. Josephus Maria Sciandra, hodiernus Episcopus Aquen. S. R. Congregationi insequentia dubia pro opportuna solutione humillime subjecit :

Ex decreto ipsius S. Congregationis diei 13 Maii 1835 in una NAMURCEN, ad X, recitatio libera alicujus officii ad libitum fit obligatoria, quum jussu Ordinarii illud affixum fuerit diei non impedito in Kalendario diocesano. Idipsum confirmari videtur decreto Urbis et Orbis, nuperrime edito die 5 Julii vertentis anni quoad choralem recitationem; quum post capitularem Officiorum electionem semel pro semper factam, et ab Ordinario approbatam, eorundum recitatio fit obligatoria. E contra quoad privatam recitationem singulis e clero licet pro lubito Officium feriae vel Officium votivum ejus diei recitare. Hinc quaeritur:

Dubium I. Utrum libera electio quoad privatam recitationem concessa coarctetur solummodo ad Officia ad libitum in decreto 5 Julii citato contenta. ideoque pro Officiis antecedentibus ad libitum, servandum sit decretum diei 26 Maii 1835?

Dubium II. Utrum in redigendo ordine annuali divini Officii debeant necne duo Officia, feriale et alterum votivum ad libitum adnotari quoties privata alterutrius recitatio singulorum arbitrio relinquitur?

Et sacra eadem Congregatio ad relationem infrascripti Secretarii, omnibus mature perpensis, ita rescribendum censuit.

Ad. I. Affirmative.

Ad. II. Redacto ordine divini officii more consueto, juxta rubricas, addi poterit rubrica particularis officii votivi currentis

diei.

Atque ita rescripsit et servari mandavit die 7 Septembris 1883. LAURENTIUS SALVATI, S.R.C., Secret.

V.

Is the Antiphon of Blessed Virgin always said twice in the

Office?

When a person recites privately the whole of the Divine Office without a break, must he add the Antiphon of the Blessed Virgin after None, before commencing Vespers; or is it sufficient to say it only after Compline? Briefly, in casu must he recite the Antiphon twice or only once? SCOTUS.

We are of opinion that, in the case stated, the Antiphon should be said only once-namely, at the end of Compline. The Antiphon is to be said after Compline, and also after Lauds, or the first hour after Lauds at which one suspends the reading of the Private Office; consequently this second part of the rubric supposes such a break or suspension.

The words of the rubric are: "Dicuntur extra chorum tantum in fine Completorii, et in fine Matutini, dictis Laudibus, si tunc terminandum est Officium: alioquin, si alia subsequatur Hora, in fine ultimae Horae." (Rub. Gen. Breviarii Tit. xxxvi.)

VI.

Should the Celebrant at Mass kiss-the Altar-Stone?

In a portable altar, where nothing is consecrated but the mere altar-stone, is the priest bound to kiss the altar-stone every time the rubrics require the celebrant to kiss the altar during mass; or is it sufficient to kiss the edge of the altar-frame or table? C. C.

We think it is sufficient to kiss the table of the altar. The Altare so often mentioned in this section of the rubrics. (Tit. iv., n, 1, Ritus Celebrandi Missam) plainly means the table of the altar. The celebrant is directed to ascend to the middle of the altar (Altare); to lay the points of his fingers when joined on the altar (Altare); to lay his extended hands on the altar (Altare); and to kiss the altar at the middle. It is in the same sense the word is used throughout this section of the rubrics (Tit. iv., n. 1), and this is to signify the table of the altar.

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

DEAR VERY REV SIR,-Shall I be thought too bold, if I venture to give expression to a wish, which I know is shared by others, that the I. E. RECORD should be again enlarged? This admirable Periodical, after fighting its way spite of difficulties and reverses, still, with onward progress, and without pretensions, during many years, has now at length gained for itself a foremost position in Ecclesiastical and Theological literature amongst English-speaking Catholics. Still it has not yet reached that perfection which we may well hope for it, nor has it attained what we should reckon on as its normal growth. There ought surely to be no reason why the RECORD should not eventually equal or rival any of the theological reviews in foreign countries. But, this, of course, cannot be achieved all at once and ever and anon there is need to put forth fresh efforts. Has not the time arrived for something like a fresh departure? And would not the next year 1886-a year of universal grace and jubilee-when, moreover, the RECORD will have attained its majority, be a seasonable opportunity? I am well aware there may be difficulties in the way. Without a still larger circulation it may be very inconvenient, perhaps impossible, to enlarge the RECORD, without at the same time raising its price: and to do this would, I am inclined to think, be a hindrance to its popularity. But all this is a matter of consideration for the responsible authorities? But why should not the circulation be largely increased? The RECORD occupies for the most part a ground of its own: it is the only organ in these countries proper for the discussion of many questions of most special interest to priests and theologians. That such an organ is imperatively required in order to raise the general tone of theological knowledge and culture, and to foster habits and taste for study amongst our ecclesiastics, no one, I think, will deny. Such an organ should be in every way adequate to the needs required. This from what I can gather is hardly the case with the RECORD as it is at present: from its too contracted size, articles may have to be crowded out or long delayed; and sufficient space can be ill afforded for the treatment of questions which may occasionally demand a fuller development. At the same time there is not room in these countries for more than one such organ, and it would be most unwise to attempt another. The RECORD is in long and honoured possession; and is under the best and most able management. For myself I have long desired to see it the one recognized Theological organ in its own special line, for ecclesiastics of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the far off Colonies, which all priests, whether Irish, Scotch or English, whether secular or regular,