MASS STIPENDS: ORIGIN AND RELEVANCE
Updating the Practice of Stole Fees
THE OFFERING of an alms in order to have Masses said for one's intentions is a familiar practice among Catholics. It enjoys the sanction of Canon Law: "According to the received and established custom of the Church, any priest may receive an alms or stipend for celebrating and applying a Mass" (c. 824, §1). It also enjoys the approval of the teaching authority of the Church: Pius VI declared that apart from any particular commemoration or prayer, the special offering or application of the sacrifice by the priest is itself more advantageous to those for whom the application is made than for anyone else, ceteris paribus. A special fruit comes to determined persons or groups from the special application. Therefore, the Pope concluded, it is permissible to offer alms for the celebration of Masses. (1)
The Church's approval of Mass stipends bears two qualifications. The first is the detailed legislation designed to prevent injustice or simony in the management of stipends (cc. 825-844). The second is the provision that bishops and pastors must apply a Mass for the people committed to their care on all Sundays and holy days of obligation, and on certain other feast days. (2) "No, excuse may be made on account of smallness of revenue, nor may any other exception whatsoever be made" (c. 339).
Are the Church's doctrine and legislation concerning Mass offerings adequately reflected in present day practice? This question cannot be answered by merely pointing to the fulfilment of all the prescripts of Canon Law; it can be answered only by determining whether the purpose of the law is being fulfilled: the safeguarding and appreciation of the significance of Mass offerings as acts of worship. A glance at the history of stipends will help us to understand this basic notion.
Historical survey: (3) the first to the fifth centuries
In the Apostolic age the faithful brought to their gatherings bread and wine for the Eucharist as well as everything that was necessary for the agape. The gifts made at the Sunday liturgical celebration were the means of supplying the needs of the clergy and of the poor, even the poor of other churches. (4) But the time the Christians in Jerusalem laid their possessions at the feet of the apostles, gifts were also made to the Church outside the Eucharistic celebration. One way of doing so, although probably associated sometimes with the liturgy, was the custom of offering tithes. This practice grew and became common by the third century.
Tertullian conceived of the offerings of Christians as an exercise of their lay priesthood. At this time the offerings of gifts and the receiving of Communion were complementary acts which the faithful performed whenever they attended Mass. According to Tertullian, no one is compelled, but everyone spontaneously offers. (5)
Nevertheless, a decline in fervor made it sometimes necessary to exhort the faithful to be generous to the Church. St. Cyprian once said to a rich woman: "Do you think you can celebrate the Lord's supper by coming to it without a sacrifice, and receiving a part of the sacrifice which a poor man offered?" (6) Later writers insisted on the obligation of contributing to the Church, for example St. Jerome: "The tithes and first fruits, which were once given by the people to the priests and Levites, apply also to the people of the Church, who are commanded not only to give tithes and first fruits, but also to sell all they possess." (7) In the sixth century, for the first time penalties were imposed in some places for failure to bring an offering to Sunday Mass and to pay tithes.
At this time there was no such thing as offering the Mass for particular persons in an exclusive, preferential way. All who offered and this included all who were present, as well as those who were absent but sent their gifts, and the dead who shared in the gifts of their relatives and friends who offered for them became part of the community for whom the priest prayed in the Secret. This prayer was always in the plural form, and asked the blessing of God upon all who took part in the sacrifice. (8)
The sixth to the tenth centuries
Up to this time the people made an offering at every Mass they attended, even daily Mass, which began to become common in the fourth century. The Church continued to urge this practice in the time of Charlemagne: "Let it be known that the people should make their offerings to God every Sunday." "Let the faithful make their offerings to the priests in church every day if this can be done; if this cannot be done every day, let it be done at least on Sunday without any excuse." (9)
Nevertheless, even the practice of Sunday offerings declined in this period. Two reasons can be given for this decline: first, the discontinuance of frequent Communion in the fifth century led necessarily to a decrease in the amount of bread and wine which the people brought for their offerings. By the seventh century even this bread and wine were no longer used as material for the consecration, but each church or monastery prepared its own supply. Secondly, in the seventh century the Church began to be given benefices. These land endowments assured the parishes and monasteries of an income, so that they no longer had to depend upon the offerings of the faithful.
Even though the giving of an offering became increasingly the lot of a few, the Mass continued to be offered for all present, although not equally. Walafrid Strabo (d. 845) wrote: "During the whole Mass those are especially prayed for and by name who offer something and receive Communion. But we can and must say that the others, who share in the faith and devotion of those who offer something, can be called and are participants in the same offering and Communion." (10) Amalar of Metz, in the ninth century, was the first to distinguish the fruits of the Mass: "The Sacrifice is offered for three intentions: for the holy, universal Church, for those special brethren whose alms or gifts we have received, and for us priests ourselves." (11)
THE ELEVENTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURIES
Once the idea became common that by making an offering one could share in a preferential way in the intention for which the priest celebrated the Mass, the custom of private Mass offerings spread. At least as early as the eleventh and twelfth centuries it was common for people to make offerings for Masses to be said on the occasions of weddings, funerals, birthdays, and anniversaries.
At the same time, benefices which were given to the Church carried more and more often the stipulation that the church or monastery have a certain number of Masses said regularly for the donor. Sometimes the money from the endowment was given to the priest during the offertory of the Mass. But more often it was given to him outside the Mass.
The custom then developed of giving a lump sum for a certain number of Masses. Whether the Masses were said on an anniversary day or not no longer mattered, only the number of Masses, which sometimes reached the extraordinary proportions of two hundred or one thousand, requested by a single person for one of his deceased.
The common offerings of the congregation, which by the eleventh century had generally changed from kind to money, remained obligatory only on the major feasts of the year. One could still, for a while, take part in the offering during Sunday and daily Mass. But soon individuals began to make their offerings to the priest before Mass, in view of having the Mass offered exclusively for their intentions. As early as 853 the Council of Rome declared that "priests should not be flattered or persuaded by anyone not to receive the offerings of all who gather with them for Mass in any sacred place." (12) The Council of York, in 1195, permitted priests to receive for the Mass only what was offered during the Mass. (13)
In spite of this legislation, the custom of offering single stipends apart from the celebration prevailed, growing enormously in importance as the number of private Masses and priests without active ministry increased. Offerings by the congregation during Mass all but disappeared. Where they remained, they lost all connection with sharing in the benefits of the Mass, and were pure alms which happened to be given to the Church during Mass. Only on the major feasts of the year did the pastor offer Mass for the intention of his people as a whole. The custom developed, and later became binding upon the pastor.
The Middle Ages also witnessed a change in the manner of expressing the special intention of the Mass. This intention was specified differently according to the following historical stages: (1) In the early Roman Mass the intention was expressed in the Secret, then called the oratio super oblata. (2) But the desire to pray for certain benefactors in particular led, in the fourth century, to the practice of inscribing their names in the diptychs and reading them in the Canon. (3) As the number of benefactors grew over the years, difficulties arose in keeping the records and in reading all the names. By the eleventh century the function of the diptychs was generally taken over by the prayers of offering which were developing around the actions of preparing the bread and wine for the sacrifice. These prayers often included a general remembrance of all benefactors, those who made an offering, and those for whom the Mass was offered. (4) In private Masses and in public Masses where diptychs were not read, the memento of the Canon was free for the priest to insert in it the names of those who offered a stipend. Mass endowments of the eleventh century frequently stipulated that the priest should do so. (5) In the twelfth century the custom developed of making the intention in a special collect. (6) Finally, in the thirteenth century the practice was established of determining the intention of the Mass upon the receipt of the stipend; a special prayer or mention in the Canon of the person's name for whom the Mass was said was no longer required.
The sixteenth century to the present
Since the thirteenth century, having a Mass said was commonly called "missae comparatio." Although medieval theologians distinguished between comparatio (arranging for; obtaining) and emptio (buying), the former word became the common word for buying in all the Romance languages. The word reflected the fact that before the Reformation commercialism was a major abuse infecting the practice of Mass offerings.
Luther's reaction was categorical: "Since such countless and unspeakable abuses have arisen everywhere through the buying and selling of Masses, it would be prudent to do without the Mass for no other reason than to curb such abuses, even if it actually possesses some value in and of itself. (14)
The Council of Trent defended the value of the Mass, but it too reacted vigorously against the commercialism surrounding it: "As regards avarice, [bishops and local ordinaries] should absolutely forbid any kind of price setting, contracts, and whatever is given for the celebration of new Masses; also importunate and unbecoming demands, rather than requests, for alms and other things of this kind which border on the sin of simony or certainly the quest for filthy lucre." (15) This decree was strengthened by further legislation, especially by the constitution of Innocent XII, Nuper, 23 December, 1697, which served as the basis for most of the present canons concerning the handling of Mass stipends. (16)
Trent also decreed the first official injunction concerning the Mass offered for the people: "By divine precept it is enjoined on all to whom is entrusted the care of souls to know their sheep, to offer sacrifice for them." (17) This small phrase received its fullest exposition in the encyclical of Benedict XIV, Cum semper oblatas, 19 August, 1744. (18)
Besides reform legislation, another factor affecting Mass offerings in this period was a change in the financial structure of the Church. The ancient forms of church support had come to an end in the Middle Ages: offerings at Mass by the congregation having become a rare token formality, and tithes having gradually developed as fiefs to the secular powers. Benefices, however, which the Church had secured against feudal grasp in the Middle Ages, remained the Church's chief means of support until the secular confiscations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
After the confiscations, most European governments undertook the responsibility of supporting Church institutions and of paying the clergy a salary. Yet the compensation actually given was never adequate to meet the needs of the Church. To an extent varying in each country, the work of the Church now depends for financial support on the offerings of the people. This meant everywhere an intensification of private offerings: of Mass stipends and of offerings made on the occasion of weddings, baptisms, and funerals. More significantly, it meant a restoration of common offerings made at Mass or sometimes outside Mass. The United States is a prime example in which popular support accounts for nearly all the revenue of the Church, although endowments (the equivalent of benefices) are gaining in importance for the maintenance of educational institutions.
In the present situation in the United States, one which is unparalleled since the early Church, what should be the place of Mass stipends?
Theological considerations
The declarations of Pius VI justify the acceptance of stipends on the basis of the special application of the Mass, an application which is founded on "the offering itself apart from any particular commemoration or prayer." As a representative of Christ and the Church, the priest can determine the special intention of the offering independently of his private intentions, prayers, and devotion. He can do so even without adding a special liturgical prayer or reference to the intention in the celebration, although it would be fitting if he expressed the intention in the liturgical formulae provided, such as the mementos of the canon or the general prayer of the Church which the Council decreed to be restored.
It is difficult to see that the special intentions expressed in certain collects and other official prayers of the Mass are not on a par with the intention determined by the celebrant when he accepts a stipend. These official intentions could hardly prejudice the special intention of the celebrant. Nevertheless some authors argue that by multiplying intentions the priest fractions the fruit of the Mass among the beneficiaries, since otherwise it would be stupid to confine the application to anything less than all the living and the dead. (19) Therefore, they say, when a priest celebrates for a certain intention in fulfillment of an obligation, he should add other intentions only as secondary or private intentions, or otherwise qualify that those for whom he is obligated to offer the Mass do not benefit less thereby.
The strongest reason why intentions should weaken as they multiply is that the human act of application is psychologically finite. While it is true that the more general the application is, the weaker it is in respect to each individual it embraces, yet there is no reason why it should be weaker if each person or need is singly and explicitly intended. In the latter case, it is probable that each added intention shares fully and without fractioning, in the blessings which God offers in the Mass through the application of the priest. When priests concelebrate or say Mass synchronously, there is no doubt that the intention of each priest is as efficacious as if each one said Mass separately.
Much more important than the proportionment of the application is the perspective of the application in the total act of the Mass. Participation in the Mass is not to be conceived in terms of buying stock and sharing in the dividends in proportion to the number of shares owned. The Mass is fundamentally the consecration of men to God through the renewed presence of Christ's offering of himself to the Father for us and with us. To the extent of their union with Christ, all men necessarily share in the offering of every Mass in the world. The abundant graces of Christ's Passion which God offers to us in the Mass are limited only by our dispositions or response in receiving them.
Even our response to God is from God, although God utilizes human cooperation. One way God uses the ministry of the Church in sanctifying men is through the prayer of the priest applying the Mass to special intentions. Yet quite independently of the special intention of the celebrant, God sanctifies men through the active part they take in the Mass by uniting their minds and hearts with the action of the priest and by taking part in the prayers, bringing an offering, and receiving Communion. As an expression of a person's interior participation and gift of himself to God, the offering is more important and valuable in itself than whether, because of it, the priest offers the Mass especially for the person's intention. (20)
The scheduled Sunday and weekday Mass is the center of life for every parish or community. It is said for the convenience of all, and is fully the worship of the parish. Funeral and wedding Masses and any extra Masses are part of parish life, but, even if the whole parish should feel free to attend and receive Communion at them, they are by their very nature largely family affairs. The restricted character of these Masses should not be allowed to invade the scheduled parish Masses. It is appropriate, therefore, that the special intention of the scheduled Mass, which is the worship of the whole parish, should not be exclusively for some individual person, but first of all for those who attend the Mass and for the parish.
Two other considerations lead to this conclusion. The first is that the Canon of the Mass mentions "those who have gathered about, for whom we offer this sacrifice." The meaning of these words would be attenuated were the priest not to include these people in the special intention of the Mass. This is true even if those who attend share in the general intention of the Mass and derive more from attending it than an absent person for whom the Mass is offered, because, according to the encyclical of Benedict XIV, the obligation of divine law that pastors should celebrate Mass for their people is not fulfilled unless the people are included in the special intention of the Mass. (21)
Secondly, in the United States, where, as a rule, the support of each parish does not come from outside benefactors or endowments, but from the contributions of the people, the people deserve that the Mass should be celebrated for them. Everyone gives an offering at the Sunday Mass; there is no reason why the extra offerings of one person, which amount to only a small fraction of the total, should be made the basis of his cornering the special benefit of the scheduled parish Mass, even though in the wisdom of God all receive an equitable share.
The problem of special intentions
There are two difficulties in having all the scheduled parish Masses offered for the people. The first is that the people want and are accustomed to have Masses offered for their special intentions. The answer to this difficulty lies not in eliminating private intentions from the Mass, but in not allowing them to become the exclusive intentions. In order to give special intentions their proper importance, the position of the parish within the Church must be appreciated. The parish is more than a local entity; it is part of a diocese, of a territory, and of the universal Church. Problems affecting the Church on a wider scale also affect the parish, and should concern the people of the parish. Consequently, the Mass for the people and their intentions should be not only for the needs of the parish, but also for specific needs of larger dimensions. (22)
The parish is also an organic entity composed of families and individuals each with needs which the whole parish should want to relieve. The sick of the parish, the dead during their wake and on their anniversaries, the spiritually distressed, and couples on their wedding anniversaries are a few of the concerns for which the parish Mass might have special intention.
These special intentions should be held within some limits in order to preserve the interest of the parish in them. The common interest and prayers of those who attend the Mass not only make up for any possible loss to a person from not having the Mass said exclusively for his intention; they also have a special value because of their giving greater embodiment to Christ's words: "If two of you shall agree on earth about anything at all for which they ask, it shall be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together for my sake, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt 18:19-20).
Specifically, the common interest of the parish will be lost if a private intention is repeated too frequently, for example if a Mass is said weekly for the same departed person. For the same reason, the number of intentions in any one Mass should be restricted to a very few. For example, if the special intentions are for world peace and for a couple on their wedding anniversary, to add several sick people to the list would only bewilder those who are trying to pray for all these intentions. Sometimes several intentions of one type could be grouped under one heading, such as "the sick of the parish".
The special intentions should be posted, in order to encourage attendance at these Masses. People sometimes flock to novenas because they can write out their petitions and have everybody pray for them. If people could do something similar at Mass they might inundate the churches.
Those who wish Masses to be said more frequently for their intentions than is feasible in their own parish could be advised to send their offerings to the missions, where, as benefactors, they have the advantage of many Masses said for their intentions.
Financial problem
The second difficulty in having all the scheduled Masses offered for the people is that many or most priests cannot afford to be deprived of stipends. This problem can be reasonably met only by compensating the priest without further loss to the parish funds.
Under present legislation, the priest could receive a stipend from the parish funds on the days he is not obliged to say a Mass for the people. When he is obliged, and on other days, he could receive something from the parish funds not as a stipend, but as part of his salary. (23) In this case, what was formerly given as Mass stipends would have to be given in the Sunday offering. Many pastors have successfully eliminated stole fees, encouraging greater generosity on Sunday or instituting some form of tithes or assessments to be given each Sunday. They might be equally successful in eliminating Mass stipends and compensating for them in the same way.
There is another solution, however, which is more in keeping with Mass offerings as acts of worship. That is to revive the practice of a daily offering at each Mass. The liturgical value of an offering is that it expresses in a vivid, concrete way the interior gift of oneself to God which is the essential element of worship. Collections are sometimes taken at novenas, where they have no liturgical significance. It is much more appropriate to make an offering at one's daily Mass. To make an offering is just as much a way of participating in the Mass as is singing, answering the responses, or receiving Communion.
The offering retains its significance and value even if the people do not share in the special intention of the Mass, but its meaning is enhanced if they do. Under present legislation, offerings may not be received as stipends for the special intention of the Mass if it is not the exclusive intention, but they may be received as simple offerings if the donors understand that their intention is not the only one, and they wish to make the offering anyway. (24)
It would be better, however, if the offerings were not made in view of one's personal intention, but in view of the primary intention which is for all who attend the Mass and for the parish. This would eradicate the still lingering and widespread impression, which is a built-in hazard of the present manner of offering stipends, that stipends are a price paid in order to buy the Mass.
Offerings at the daily Mass should in no way appear obligatory. Passing the basket would be entirely out of place. The people would be spared a feeling of coercion if they could put their offerings in a box in the vestibule; this box would then be brought to the altar for the priest's blessing during the offertory. An offering box could even be a permanent feature of the church, so that those who cannot attend daily Mass might at least participate in it by leaving, at their convenience, an offering to be brought to the altar during Mass. People are accustomed to Communion being brought to the sick. A correlative manner of participating in the Mass for those who cannot attend is the practice, verified in history, of sending one's offerings for the Mass.
Offerings at the daily Mass need not be large. But if people learned to appreciate the sacredness of this practice as an act of worship they would give more than enough to compensate for the priest's foregoing of stipends. The generosity of the people would, of course, be conditioned by their knowledge that the priests practiced poverty and that the parish needed the money, or at least contributed to other parts of the Church which do need it.
Whether the priest is reimbursed directly through these offerings or indirectly through the parish funds make little difference. The matter might b determined by the bishop's regulation One further advantage to the priest in offering the Mass specially for the people and their intentions is that he could, as is right, be given something for every scheduled Mass at which th people make an offering, whereas now if he has no stipend he receives nothing.
Putting the program into effect
Offering the scheduled Masses for the people and their intentions and having a daily offering at these Masses may have to be introduced gradually, and in soime places only to a limited extent. At one time the law was that wealthy parish must apply a Mass for the people every day, receiving no stipend for it. Benedict XIV reduced this obligation to certain days for all parishes because of the difficulty of defining a wealthy parish. (25) The ideal of daily Mass for the people should be kept in mind, however, ai put into effect as far as possible.
The daily Mass for the people and their intentions and the daily Mass offering are two important ways of encouraging meaningful participation the Mass. The establishment of th practices together with an appreciation of their significance would contribute greatly to the vitality of the parish daily and Sunday Mass.
1. Const. "Auctorem fidei," 28 Aug.' 1794, nn. 30 & 54 (Mansi, 38, 1269 & 1273).
2. The most recent official list of these days is contained in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 52 (1960), 985.
3. Cf. T. Ortolan, "Honoraires de messes," Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, 7-1, (1927), 69-94; Karl Josel Merk, Abriss einer liturgiegeschichtlichen Darstellung des Mess-Stipendiums (Stuttgart: Verlag Otto Schloz, 1928), a book valuable for its notes, but not reliable in the text; A. Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter (Freiburg: Herder, 1902), esp. 75-6,85; H. Leclereq, "Dime," Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, 4-1 (1920), 995-1003; G. Lepointe, "Dime," Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 4 (1949), 1231-44; G. Mollat, "Bénéfices ecelésiastiques," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclisiastiques, 7 (1934), 1237-70; G. Mollat et al., "Bénéfices ecelésiastiques," Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 2 (1937), 406-747.
4. Cf. 1 Cor 16:2.
5. Apologeticus, 39 (PL 1, 470) ; cf. De exhort. cast., 8 &11 (CCSL 15, 1024-5, 1031).
6. De opere et eleemos., 15 (CSEL 3, 384).
7. In Malachiam, 3:7 (PL 25, 1571).
8. Cf. the Sacramentarium Veronense (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior, Fontes I, ed. L. Mohlberg. Rome: Herder, 1956), passim.
9. Benedict the Deacon, Capitularium Collectio, 1, c. 371, and 2, c. 170 (PL 97, 750 and 768).
10. Liber de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in eccl. observ. rerum (PL 114, 948).
11. De eccles. officiis, 3, c. 23 (PL 105, 1138).
12. Canon 17 (Mansi, 14, 1005).
13. Decretum 3 (Mansi, 22, 653).
14. Smalkaldische Artiklen, Zweiter Teil, art. 2 (Die Bekentnisschriften der evangelischlutherischen Kirche [Göttingen: Vandehoek & Ruprecht, 1956], 417).
15. Sess. 22, Decretum de observandis et evitandis in celebratione missae (Mansi, 33, 131).
16. P. Gasparri, Codicis iuris canonici fontes, I (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1923), n,260, pp. 509-18.
17. Sess. 23, Decretum de reformatione (Mansi, 33, 140).
18. P. Gasparri, op. cit., n. 345, pp. 824-32.
19. Cf. B. H. Merkelbach, Summa theologiae moralis 3 (Brussels: Desclée, 1956), 298-300. Holding the opposite opinion are R. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Eucharistia (Torino: Marietti, 1946), 306-13; and E. Doranzo, De Eucharistia (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1948), 1076-1100. For a discussion of the views of older thelogians, see A. Michel, "Messe, v. le messe chez les théologiens postérieurs au Concile de Trenteessence et efficacité," Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 10-1 (1928), 1143-1315, esp. 1289-1304.
20. J. A. Jungmann seems to make the act of offering the exclusive basis for sharing in the special benefit, in "Mass Intentions and Mass Stipends," Unto the Altar, ed. Alfon Kirchgaessner, tr. R. Brennan (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 30.
21. Cum semper oblatas, par. 2 (P. Gasparri, op. cit., p. 825).
22. For a list of sixty-two such intentions, see "It Can Be Done," Worship, 36 (1961-6, 52-4.
23. This point is discussed in Clergy Review, 21 (1941), 110-11.
24. 'This point is discussed in Clergy Review, 8 (1934), 323-5; and 22 (1942), 81-2.
25. Op. cit., par. 6 (ed. cit., p. 826).