CHURCHES OF THE RECEPTITIA TYPE
Receptitiae were so called those churches in which, in former times, only those who were natives of the place where such churches stood could be received, i.e., admitted to the government and to participation in the fruits of the common mass. The participants were therefore called *recepti*, and *participatio* was the corresponding right to receive a share of the fruits of the common mass.
The *r.* were also called patrimonial (inasmuch as only natives of the patria in which the churches stood could be received), matricial (in the sense that such churches were considered as mothers and their participants as patrimonial sons), consorzial, communal or community churches (since the participants formed a consortium and had common origins, rights and duties). Since all natives of the place could in principle be received into the church of that place, the *r.* were originally immaterial; later, however, a *numerus clausus* was fixed at the rate of one participant per thousand inhabitants. Those *r.* which exercised parochial care are called *curate*; this care was originally exercised *actualiter* and *in solidum* by all the participants, then *per turnum*, and finally *actualiter* by a vicar-curate and *habitualiter* by the college of participants; there are also non-curate *r.*
The *r.* is a single collegial moral person, since the dignities existing in it were purely nominal or tenuous, *quasi honores tantum*, without erection into a title; and for this reason the *r.* is essentially distinct both from cathedral and collegiate chapters and from the parish.
The origin of the *r.* is uncertain. Excluding a direct historical-juridical derivation either from the ancient *presbyterium* and *paroecia*, or from the *Eigentliche (ecclesia propria)* and the *giustoriano*, it may be held with solid probability that in Italy the *r.* arose on the model of the ancient corporations at the time of the Communes and subsequently developed mainly in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the influence of Spanish rule, since patrimonial churches were also very widespread in Spain. With the advent of B. Tanucci at the Court of Naples, the *r.* suffered undue interference from the civil authority, with the encouragement of the Neapolitan jurist sac. Diego Gatta, who attempted a historical-juridical reconstruction of the *r.* in a jurisdictional sense. But after the Concordat of Terracina (16 Feb. 1818), the juridical status of the *r.* was revised in accordance with canon law by the brief *Impresa* (13 Aug. 1819), supplemented by “Istruzioni e dilucidazioni per la formazione dei piani” and by a “Statuto modello” of the *r.*
The law of 15 Aug. 1867, no. 384, art. 2 suppressed the *r.*, whose property was confiscated, except that for those which were curate a single benefice was left, to which was assigned as endowment a quota called *curata*, carved out of the mass of the property of the *r.* and belonging to the vicar-curate, while the other participants were granted a life pension; upon the death of the last pensioner the property of the *r.* was to pass to the communes, which however were to assign an endowment for the maintenance and for the celebration of divine service in the said church and to constitute the supplement of congruous support for the parish priest of the same *r.* Subsequently, to satisfy the expectations of the communes, it was established in their favour, by the law of 4 June 1890, no. 191, the advance delivery of the revenues of the suppressed *r.*, without waiting for the death of the last pensioner.
The Holy See, which could not approve the illegitimate suppression of the *r.*, regulated the new economic relations created between vicar-curate and pensioned participants by the decree *Ad dirimendas* (22 Feb. 1876). The CIC has not treated explicitly of the *r.*, which canonically and *de iure* must be considered still in existence, even if not always and *de facto* functioning regularly. As regards their regulation, the S. Congr. of the Council declared the brief *Impresa* still effective, *salvo CIC praescriptionibus, si et in quantum eidem Brevi derogaverint* (Mephien. et Rapollen. *Circa Breve: Impensa*, 17 May 1919). Neither the Lateran Concordat dealt with the *r.*, although in the Gentili draft (1925) for the reform of ecclesiastical legislation the restitution to the *r.* of the property already seized by the communes under the eversive laws had been proposed.
The juridical and practical settlement, both canonical and civil, of the *r.* remains one of the most serious problems to be resolved in southern Italy.