In the first place, then, the third resolution passed by the above-mentioned Bishops appears very ambiguous and obscure. In case of a private marriage, both the Ordinary of the man and the Ordinary of the woman have power to dispense with the publication of the banns, and as a matter of fact this dispensation is granted by the Bishop in whose diocese the marriage is celebrated, whether he be the Ordinary of the one or of the other of the contracting parties. If, then, the sense of the resolution be to limit this power to the Ordinary of the man, to the exclusion of the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution ought not to be carried out, as being contrary to the canons and to custom. But if, on the other hand, the meaning be, that when once the dispensation has been obtained from the Ordinary of the man, there is no need to obtain it also from the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution thus interpreted may be put into practice, and is not deserving of censure. The fourth resolution, however, cannot be softened by any interpretation. That resolution prescribed that every dispensation in prohibited degrees of relationship should be granted by the Ordinary of each of the contracting parties. And yet the Bishops ought to have reflected that relationship being a bond which affects two persons, and prevents them from contracting matrimony one with the other, the moment one of these persons becomes free from this bond, the other, by a necessary consequence, is also set at liberty, it being impossible that one can be free whilst the other remains bound. Whenever, therefore, the bond of relationship between a man and a woman has been removed by lawful authority, either of the Holy See or of one of the Ordinaries, no second dispensation is required, nor is it necessary to have recourse to the other Ordinary to obtain such dispensation.... II. Decrees Granting An Indulgence To A Prayer To Be Said Before Hearing Confessions, And To A Prayer For A Happy Death. _Oratio recitanda ante sacramentales confessiones excipiendas._