because they erroneously suppose that baptism conferred by a priest has a special virtue which they are unwilling to see lost to the child, in this case we should not take the request made by the midwife to be a sufficient reason per se for a conditional baptism.

IV.

May the Viaticum be administered by a Priest who is not vested in Soutane and Surplice?

St. Liguori says, " Ministrare Eucharistiam sine stola et superpelliceo communiter censent Doctores esse mortale ex genere suo." May one notwithstanding conform to the custom of a diocese tacitly approved by the bishop, of administering the last sacraments to the sick with a stole alone, " super vestem communem?" The contrary practice would be generally "valde inconveniens (O'Kane, 798). Even to send them to the house beforehand is not practicable.

In the circumstances of our country you are still justified in very many instances in following the custom to which you refer, and which is tolerated by the bishops on account of the very great practical difficulty of adhering exactly to the rubric of the ritual. But we ought to conform to the ritual where this great practical difficulty does not exist. What, for instance, prevents a priest from taking with him his surplice and soutane when he drives to a sick call in the country? We fancy, too, that in many other instances this practical difficulty would disappear if the priest provided himself with a very light soutane of cashmere or some such stuff, without sleeves and without lining, and a surplice also of fine, gauzy material. Both would easily fit in one of those small neat leather bags which are now so common, and which would not be inconvenient or unsuitable for the priest to carry in his hand when he walks to a sick-call in the village or its vicinity.

V.

The People should kneel at the Creed when said in Low Mass.

It is a very ancient custom in this and several other dioceses for the people to stand while the priest is saying the Creed at Mass. The posture seems to be a very respectful one, as it is understood to be a token of their profession of faith in the articles of the Creed.

Ought the custom to be allowed to continue?

At the Creed, as at all other parts of the private Mass, except the Gospel, the kneeling posture is the proper one for

the people. At the Gospel alone they stand. In the Missal rubrics we read: "Circumstantes autem in Missis privatis semper genua flectunt, etiam tempore Paschali, praeterquam dum legitur Evangelium." And we know that the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in a decree which was approved by Urban VIII., declared customs contrary to the rubrics of the Roman Missal to be abuses. In trying to abolish a custom which is so ancient and general, and which probably originated from praiseworthy motives, you should proceed slowly and prudently. You should first take counsel with your bishop on the matter, and if he recommends the strict adherence to the rubric, you should then explain to the people the good reasons for the change about to be inaugurated.

VI.

How should the Bishop of the Diocese be saluted when he presides at an Office for the Dead?

1. Should a Bishop presiding at an Office for the Dead in his own diocese be saluted with a genuflection by the priests (not canons) who pass before him on their way to read the lessons?

2. In the same circumstances should the Master of Ceremonies in passing before the Bishop salute him with a genuflection? 3. Does it make a difference if the Office is celebrated at an altar where the Blessed Sacrament is kept?

T. F.

1. Yes. The Congregation of Rites decided (12th Sept. 1857), that the ordinary choir salutations are not to be omitted at the Office for the Dead, or at the Tenebræ in Holy Week, except on Good Friday, from the time of the adoration of the Cross till the Mass on Holy Saturday. Now, the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (lib. I. c. xviii. n. 3) lays down the general rule on the manner of saluting a bishop when officiating in his own diocese in these words:

Regulariter quoties ipsi canonici transeunt directe ante altare vel ante episcopum, caput et humeros profunde inclinant; beneficiati autem et caeteri de clero genuflectere debent, transeundo, tam ante altare, quam ante episcopum.

Accordingly we find it expressly stated by the rubricists generally, that the chanters and the clergy, except canons, who proceed to read the lessons salute with a genuflection the diocesan bishop when they pass him by on the way to the lectern. It will suffice to refer to one or two modern

1 Rubr. Gen. Mis. par. i., tit xvii., n. 2.

authorities. Martinucci, in his chapter on the Office for the Dead (Book v. cap. xxi.), writes:

"Cantores, quando cantabitur antiphona, procedent ante altare, genuflectent ad Crucem et ad episcopum."

And again at n. 41:

"Dum recitabitur Pater Noster a caeremonio invitabitur qui cantare primam lectionem debebit: hic autem de stallo suo discedens coibit cum caeremonio et procedet ante altare, conficiens reverentiam si fuerit canonicus, genuflectionem autem, si Beneficiarius, ad Episcopum et ad Altare, vel prius ad Altare postea ad Episcopum, juxta Altaris Situm, et ante legile consistet."

De Herdt1 lays down the same rule.

2. Yes; unless the master of ceremonies happens to be

a canon.

3. The presence on the altar of the tabernacle containing the Blessed Sacrament does not cause a difference in the mode of saluting the bishop.

VII.

The Missa Quotidiana Defunctorum offered for the Living. Is it at all allowed to say the Missa quotidiana defunctorum, when discharging an ordinary intention for the living? F. M.

1. This is not allowable on a double feast or privileged feria on which the Missa Quotidiana Defunctorum is forbidden.

2. It is not allowable, in case of an express understanding on the part of the donor that the Mass was not to be said in black.

3. But if the day allows a Requiem Mass, and if there is no such express understanding, a priest satisfies his obligation to the donor of the honorarium, and is not consequently obliged to make restitution, by offering the Missa Quotidiana for his intention, even though the intention have regard to the living only.2 Because the efficacy of one Mass is the same as the efficacy of any other Mass, ratione sacrificii. Moreover, it is the common teaching of Theologians that the souls in purgatory can and do assist the faithful on earth by their prayers.

Though the priest who acts in this way satisfies the obligation of justice, there is a certain deordination in

1 Praxis Pontificalis, Tom. I. Lib. I. cap. 18, n. 156.

2 See Cavalieri, Tom. III. x. n. 20.

saying the Missa defunctorum for the living, inasmuch as the Church has drawn up the special prayers of this Mass as suffrages for the dead.

VIII.

The Second Prayer in the Missa Quotidiana.

In saying the Missa Quotidiana Defunctorum for deceased priests, is it competent for me to say, instead of the second of the three ordinary prayers, a prayer for my deceased father?

O'D.

Yes; the second prayer is changeable, and one is not bound to make in this place the commemoration of the person or persons for whom the Mass is offered.

R. BROWNE.

CORRESPONDENCE.
I.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

Cincinnati, June 5th, 1882.

SIR-Permit me to call attention to an article of mine published in The Catholic Review newspaper, a copy of which I send you, in reply to a criticism of Vol. iv. of Alzog's Church History, which appeared in the May number of The Irish Ecclesiastical Record. The article needs no explanation, and I merely bring it under your notice, leaving to you the character of the reparation that should be made.-Respectfully, THOS. S. BYRNE.

We have received from the Rev. Thos. S. Byrne, one of the American "translators" of Alzog's Church History, the foregoing letter which we publish with much pleasure. It refers to an observation made by the writer of the notice of that work, which appeared in our May number.

We regret that we cannot comply with Fr. Byrne's request that we should also insert, as a reply to the observation referred to, his letter on the subject to the Editor of our excellent American contemporary, The Catholic Review. We must for two reasons decline to do so.

In the first place, that letter is not addressed to the Editor of the RECORD, nor was it written for insertion in these pages. It was, as we have stated, addressed to the Editor of an American newspaper. That gentleman in the

exercise of his discretion has published it, prefixing to it, with commendable fairness, the notice so bitterly complained of by Fr. Byrne. We fail to see what claim Fr. Byrne has upon us to secure for it further publicity by transferring it to the pages of the RECORD. Letters addressed to the Editor of the RECORD will always command our respectful attention. We can give no such undertaking in reference to letters addressed to the Editors of other periodicals, and already published by them.

But lest Fr. Byrne should infer from these remarks that a similar letter, if addressed to the Editor of the RECORD, would, as a matter of course, be inserted by us, it may be well to state the second ground on which we feel called upon to decline inserting his letter to the Editor of the American Review. The writer of the notice thus replied to by Fr. Byrne is a priest. We do not raise the question whether Fr. Byrne before writing his letter had adverted to the possibility of this being the case. We merely state that it is so as a matter of fact. And Fr. Byrne's letter, both in its general tone, and in many of the expressions that it contains, is such as we could not consent to publish in these pages, as written by one priest and referring to another.

If, however, Fr. Byrne wishes to write a suitable "vindication of the passage to which attention has been called, and if he addresses that vindication to the Editor of the RECORD, we can assure him that the writer of the notice is quite prepared not only to justify the observations already published, but to point out that a very large measure of indulgence has been extended in these pages not only to the fourth, but also to the preceding volumes of the "Translation" of Alzog's Church History.-ED. I. E. R.

II.

MASS IN A PRIVATE HOUSE.

Dublin, June 21st, 1882.

Dear Mr. EDITOR,-In the last number of your valuable RECORD, a question, or rather two questions of great practical importance were raised by one of your correspondents.

Under the heading "Mass in a private house," it was asked1. Does a person satisfy the obligation of hearing Mass on

Sunday by assisting at it in a private house?

may he

2. When a Bishop permits a Priest to say Mass in his own house on a Sunday, or in a private house, limit the number of persons who satisfy the obligation of hearing 2 E

VOL. III.