privilege of a portable altar. This altar should have sufficient space to hold at least the chalice and host. As to their first usage the well-known Marténe writes as follows in his "Ancient Ecclesiastical Rites," Part ii, Bk. ii, Chap. 17:

"Besides fixed altars, there are others called portable, traveling, or pilgrimage altars, the origin of which according to some goes as far back as the eighth century. Rather, they date back to the very beginning of the Church. There can be no doubt that portable altars were used before fixed altars, for the reason that in the early days of the Church there were no temples, no permanent or fixed places for the sacred mysteries, but as Eusebius says, in Bk. 7, Chap. 22, quoting the words of Dionysius of Alexandria, "Any place at all, a field, a forest, a ship, a stable, a prison, a temple, could serve as places for the sacred mysteries" and because of this fact it was necessary that portable altars be easily carried to any one place. After the persecutions ceased and wealthy princes built magnificent Basilicas, the altars, which up to this period were movable, became fixed, and as a result traveling altars became less used. A little later, because of the necessity of traveling and the scarcity of fixed and consecrated altars, traveling altars again came into use. Whence Ven. Bede says: "Daily they offer to God the sacrifice of the loving Victim, carrying with them the little cups and altars each consecrated in turn."

Altars or tables of this kind were made from marble, blockstone, porphyry, jasper, alabaster, onyx, crystal, wood, or ebony. They were rectangular in form and rested either on wooden tables or some more or less expensive foundation.

According to the present laws of the Church portable altars must be made of stone; they must contain the relics of some saint and be consecrated by a bishop.

Among the Greeks instead of traveling altars, Antimensia are used. These consist of precious linens containing the holy relics, anointed with sacred oil by the blessing of a bishop at a special Mass for that purpose.

In the Russian Orthodox Church a temple can not be consecrated unless it contains at least one of these linens.

In the Syrian Church small tables of wood may be used in place of the Antimensia, in case of necessity.

Answer 2.-Any altar, whether fixed or movable, is held to be desecrated if:

1. It become broken. Now the break in itself may be serious by reason of the size of the fracture or serious by reason of its location, even though in itself the break may by no means be considerable. 2. If the relics have been removed or even if the sepulcher has been opened.

3. If the sepulcher itself has been broken or its cover, or if it has only been removed.

4. If the altar slab has been entirely removed from the lower

structure.

5. If the upper part of the altar has been injured. Therefore, because of these laws the altar in the above case has been desecrated.

Answer 3.-It is said in the above case that the altar slab had two large piercings. In this case the same conditions obtain that affect the altar by reason of a break. These conditions we have seen in the preceding question. And so I consider that the altar has been desecrated.

Answer 4.-The portable altar given to Anselm, and which was mutilated by him in his ignorance, has become desecrated according to the above laws, and therefore the priest Anselm dare not celebrate Mass on said altar.

XXV. ARE INFORMAL BETROTHALS BINDING

IN CONSCIENCE?

Of the commentators who affirm this, HEINER expresses himself most clearly, and therefore his argument may here be repeated: "As every positive promise engenders under natural law an obligation, and for this reason is binding in conscience and before God, there can be hardly a doubt that even a secret promise to marry is, of its own force, binding in conscience. Although, owing to the positive law, such a secret promise to marry has no legal operation and can not be enforced pro foro externo, this fact changes nothing in the consequences which a promise of this kind begets by virtue of its existence. The law declares invalid the marriage-promise without formal betrothal, not, however, the promise with the intention to take upon one's self the obligation to enter a prospective marriage, even though this promise is by the legislator declared invalid. In conscience one party is bound to keep such a promise to the other, and to redeem his promise either by formal betrothal or by marriage."

This argument can not be regarded as proving its point. An informal marriage promise is under the natural law binding, no doubt, but so is the informal marriage. And yet the informal marriage is without doubt invalid, because "owing to the positive law such marriage has no legal operation," it contracts no matrimonial union pro foro externo, and begets no marriage rights nor duties whatsoever, thus depriving the contract of any value it may have by virtue of the natural law. The appeal to the natural law proves nothing therefore.

On the contrary we would conclude, and we believe correctly so:

If in consequence of the Church's legislation, governing the forum externum and internum, there ensues from the repudiation of an act, of itself valid according to the natural law, its nullity and ineffectiveness for the forum internum, there must result, if the Church repudiates also the agreement to perform this act, a fortiori also nullity and ineffectiveness of the agreement for the forum internum That the Church has exercised her authority over betrothals pro foro interno is known to every canonist. The bond formed by the betrothal is, in and of itself, easily dissolved, even simply by mutual consent without any particular reason. It is difficult to believe that the words of a certain ecclesiastical law, which in all its other paragraphs undoubtedly does bind in the forum internum, should in its first paragraph, despite its plain wording, refer merely to the forum

externum.

One single ground might seemingly be mentioned in support of their claim, but none of the commentators refer to it. The first article says: Ea tantum sponsalia HABENTUR valida, while in the third article we find: Ea tantum matrimonia valida SUNT. However, habentur and sunt are only different terms that have here the same meaning, for alone those betrothals made under observance of the lawful form are valid, because the Church repudiates the informal ones, and deprives them of all value and force. If-and in this all commentators are unanimous, from an informal betrothal not even the fides sponsalitia follows, and therefore a transgression against the holy purity does not involve a breach of faith and a violation of justice (iustitia commutativa) toward the innocent party, then it is difficult to perceive how there can be an obligation in conscience.

The law says: "an informal marriage promise is not a betrothal," such an informal betrothal can not therefore be a promise with the

intention of assuming an obligation, and can not, therefore, be of value and binding in conscience. The position of the commentators who defend the obligation incurred by informal betrothal does not seem consistent. Either they must concede to an informal engagement all effects pro foro interno, which proceed from the natural law, therefore fidelitas and fides (sponsalitia or otherwise) with iustitia commutativa and invalidity of a subsequent betrothal stante priori-three grave obligations therefore, or they must admit that none of the effects, not even the minor obligation of fidelitas, result for the forum internum. VERMEERSCH, in his excellent commentary, supports this view.

Cardinal Gennari refers, moreover, to the introduction of the decree, where are set forth the dangers of informal betrothal, as: primum quidem incitamenta peccandi causamque, cur inexpertae puellae decipiantur, postea dissidia ac lites inextricabiles, and concludes with good reason that if informal betrothals were binding in conscience, all these dangers which the legislator intended to set aside would remain, and the legislator obviously can not intend this. Finally he cites from Cardinal Gasparri's work (De Matrim., n. 78) a decision of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. Leo XIII had ordained for so-called Latin America a certain written form for the validity of a betrothal, and to the question whether betrothals without this written form were in those countries binding, at least in conscience, the Congregation, on January 5, 1902, handed down the answer, confirmed by the Pope: Praedicta sponsalia pro neutro foro valere.

No confessor has therefore the right to construe any obligation whatsoever from an informal betrothal. If a liability is incurred by one who has entered an informal betrothal, it can not originate from the betrothal (there is no betrothal), but only from some other inci