EX QUO (On the Euchologion)
Pope
Benedict
Encyclical of
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics,
Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the
Apostolic See.
Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons, We Give
You Greeting and Our Apostolic Blessing.
Ever since We first became Pope, We have proven
Our fatherly love in embracing in Christ Our beloved eastern clergy and people,
the Uniates as they are called, who are in agreement
with Us and are free from the stain of schism. We have made every attempt to
induce the schismatics to abandon their errors and
join Us in Catholic unity. We do not intend to recall here all the measures We
took for this purpose since the records of the Congregation for the Propagation
of the Faith are filled with Our decrees on this subject and everyone can refer
to Our apostolic letters and constitutions on eastern affairs in the volumes of
Our Bullarium. Our present purpose is to
inform you that the work of correcting the Greek Euchologion
is now completed. It has already been printed by the press of the Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith following a lengthy scrutiny of every detail
and most careful correction.
Consequently We exhort you to set aside
previous editions which have been found to contain too many different errors,
and to use this edition in sacred rites. The errors of former editions,
however, are not to be wonderered at, for errors are
readily made whenever the same work goes through many editions and the editors
do not exert the strictest care. Such care is necessary to prevent the repeated
insertion or addition of matters which are not found in the earliest and most
faithful editions, whether through deceit or ignorance. Then since these errors
have to be excised or somehow restrained, corrections and new editions more
faithful to the original eventually are necessary. This has obviously occurred
in the
In regard to the corrections of your Euchologion (which, as you well know, is no more than the
collection of prayers and blessings of the Church and so with Goarius We can appropriately term it the Ritual, Manual,
Sacerdotal, or Pontifical of your Church), We propose to address two subjects
in particular in this letter: namely, to set down first, the history of the new
corrected edition which has just been completed, and then to expound in greater
detail certain admonitions which have been suitably placed at the beginning of
the Euchologion. We have postponed making known to
you several other matters relating to the Euchologion
itself. These could not properly be included in the present letter since they
would make it immoderately long and would impose excessive toil on Us quite
unsuited to Our age and not easily included with the other important concerns
which particularly engage Us at present in Our Apostolic ministry and cannot
now be laid aside.
Correction of the Euchologion
2. Philip IV, Catholic King of the
3. The members of this Congregation
conscientiously undertook the work entrusted to them; their careful work was
approved by Leo Allatius who wrote in a discussion of
the Greek Euchologion: "I could relate and
investigate many matters about the book, but since it is submitted to the
censure and judgment of keen scholars, I wait for a true statement and an
infallible verdict concerning it." They met indeed for eighty-two
sessions, as was long ago affirmed by Cardinal Franciscus
Barberinus the elder at the meeting of the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Pope Innocent X attended this
meeting on January 23, 1645, shortly after the death of his predecessor Urban,
the uncle of this cardinal. Yet the correction of the Euchologion
was not finished, and the new edition could not be brought to completion.
New Congregation on the Euchologion
4. With succeeding popes, although the work was
never completely abandoned, it proceeded slowly while, as often happens, its
final conclusion was held up by the emergence of new and later business. But
when God raised Us to the supreme pontificate, among Our first concerns was the
correction of the books of the
At the start a dispute arose as to the method to
be followed in the investigating-some judging that the forms of the Sacraments
should be examined first, while others urged that matters relating to the duty
of simple priests should be dealt with separately from those pertaining to
bishops. We removed this problem by commanding that the revision and correction
of the Euchologion should proceed in stages from the
first page to the following pages in the order in which the Euchologion
itself is arranged and printed. Finally We required the Secretary of the
Congregation to produce an agenda before every session, for timely delivery not
only to each of the Cardinals and Consultors who were
to meet but also to Us, since We wanted to know of every matter to be discussed
in the Congregation. In this agenda he was to list the headings of the
questions to be brought forward, and to add notes on the considerations adduced
and conclusions arrived at on these matters in the Congregations of previous
popes insofar as they had been dealt with in former Congregations, followed by
opinions on these questions from theological authors and ecclesiastical
records.
Secretary of the Congregation
5. It was unnecessary, as one would expect, to advise the Secretary on the subject of examining and
comparing old Euchologia. He is expert in the Greek
language, outstanding in sacred learning and teaching, and ready to undertake
any great labor in obedience to and for the benefit of the Apostolic See; he
has often shown this on other occasions when affairs demanded it, and also by zealously publishing books.
Everyone is aware that Father Jacobus Goarius of the Order of
Preachers, a Frenchman by race, spent eight years in eastern parts examining
all matters closely, and then came to
Importance of Extant Manuscripts of Old
6. Men of learning are also aware that several
manuscript examples of the Greek Euchologion are
preserved in the Vatican library, and that the Library of the Barberini has the famous Euchologium
Barberinum S. Marci, so called because it was
brought there long ago from the monastery of St. Mark at Florence. They know
that this is more than ten centuries old, since Leo Allatius
testified that already in his day it was considered to be more than nine
hundred years old by the greatest experts of his time: "The Barberini codex surpasses all the others in point of
antiquity. It is a most accurate copy in square letters on parchment and was
written more than nine hundred years ago in the opinion of those who are
considered foremost in judging these matters." Learned men must also know
of the precious codex preserved in the archive of the monastery of Grottaferrata which is called the Euchologium Patriarchale.
It was left to the monks of that abbey by the will of the great Cardinal Besscion, who was the first Commendatory Abbot of that
monastery. He always regarded it very highly since he had received it as a gift
from Cardinal Giuliano Cesarino,
who had in turn been given it at the Council of Florence by the Cretan priest Georgius Varj, as Arcudius testifies. All these copies of the Euchologion have been examined and critically compared as a
guide to accuracy and soundness in the new edition of the Euchologion.
This work was done both by the prelate who is Secretary and by other members of
the Congregation who are skilled in Greek usage. Moreover there was no need for
Us to advise this measure, since they themselves of their own accord undertook
this trouble and performed it with great care.
7. Likewise We did not need to remind the
learned Cardinals and Consultors in the Congrgation of those wise remarks of the renowned Joannes Morinus in the preface to
his work De Sacris Ordinibus,
of Lukas Holstein in his in Dissertatione
1, de Sacramento Confirmationis, and finally of
the author of the Vindiciarum P. le Brun where he writes on the form of the Sacrament of
the Eucharist. These remarks should be certainly kept in mind if one desires to
judge the Greek rites correctly. For it would of course be unjust, mistaken,
and opposed to the peace and unity of the Church to make judgments concerning
the Greek Rites solely on the basis of a knowledge of
the Latin Rituals and what is reported by some of our writers. Even though they
are expert in our practices, they are uninstructed in Greek customs, and do not
know how the Apostolic See has always regarded them. So they unhesitatingly
condemn everything in the sacred Greek rites which they discover to be
dissimilar and not in agreement with the Latin rite.
As We say, there was no need to remind the
Cardinals and Consultors selected for the correction
of the Euchologion of these matters, since they had
already themselves decided on this method of action and judgment and had
thoroughly followed it. We acknowledge that this was also done by the cardinals
and prelates who gave their opinion in the Congregations which met on this
subject under Urban VIII. All the measures which We insisted on, as mentioned
above, were fully implemented and the unceasing care and effort expended by all
the members of the Congregation in completing the work cannot be sufficiently
emphasized. Not only did the Secretary show Us the agenda before each of their
sessions, but also after each session he carefully reported to Us the
statements and resolutions of the Congregation. We read them all attentively
and after due consideration approved and confirmed them insofar as it seemed
expedient to do so. By keeping to this method the correction of the Euchologion was completed and the new edition of it was
printed in 1754, at the press of the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith. We were desirous of bringing these matters to your attention to acquaint
you with the great zeal, toil, and care which were devoted to the publication
of the corrected edition of your Euchologion.
Four Admonitions
8. At the beginning of this most recent edition
four admonitions are to be found. We want to explain briefly to you in this
letter the reasons for the presence of these remarks.
First Admonition-Commemoration of Pontiff in
the Mass
9. The first admonition is thus expressed:
"It must be known that the priests who will use the Euchologion
should be acquainted with the ecclesiastical canons of the holy Fathers and the
Constitutions of the Catholic Church in order that they may avoid obvious
mistakes in administering the divine Sacraments and performing their other
duties. Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred
liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one's own bishop
and patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if
either or both of them are schismatic or heretic they should by no means be
commemorated." Certainly this is in full agreement with the decrees passed
at the meeting of the Congregation on May 1, 1746, which We approved and
confirmed. The following question was raised at that meeting: "whether the
name of the supreme pontiff should be put into the prayers said by priest and
deacon at the Offertory as well as in the other prayers, that is, For the supreme
pontiff N." This response was given to that question: "In the
instruction which is to be added at the start of the Euchologion,
Greek priests should be advised to make a commemoration of the supreme pontiff
and of their bishop or archbishop if he is in union with the Roman Catholic
Church, and moreover a rubric should be put in the margin of the Liturgy
referring them to the instruction." For it seemed best to add in this
manner such matter as was missed in the text of the Euchologion
itself.
This Practice is Long-Standing
10. We have Ourselves dealt with the
commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass, and with the
antiquity of this practice in Our treatise De Sacrificio
Missae, sect. I, n. 219. But since the
publication of this book, the same subject has been treated with many
extraordinary observations by Dominicus Georgius (who in his lifetime was Our dear sacristan) in
his De Liturgia Romani Pontificis,
vol. 3, chap. 3, no. 14, where he writes: "It has ever been customary in
the Catholic Church to recite the name of the Roman pontiff during the sacred
mysteries." In no. 22 he adds: "All the ancient testimonies and the
oldest copies of the sacred canon agree concerning the name of the supreme
pontiff." Indeed, that such a commemoration had been made in the Mass is
shown by the Ambrosian Liturgy, the Mozarabic Mass, and the Latin Mass which the Lutheran Flaccus Illyricus copied from one
ancient manuscript and published. So also does the most ancient Liturgy which
is found in the old manuscript on the Sacraments of the Roman Church which was
published by Venerable Cardinal Thomasius. Finally,
this is also shown in all the sacred canons of the Mass, whether printed or
written by hand, as the prelate Niccolo Antonelli amply shows in the long and learned dissertation
which he wrote as a necessary part of his duty as Secretary of the Congregation
for the Correction of the Euchologion; he had it
printed when a dispute on this subject arose among the Cardinals and Consultors. A reprint of this can also be I found in the
Appendix to the old Lateran Monastic Missal in the Collectio
Liturgica, vol. 1, made by Fr. Emanuele de Azevedo.
11. So far the testimonies mentioned relate to
the Latin Church. As regards the Greek Church, Cardinal Bona says that it is
not known whether in the early centuries it recalled the Roman pontiff in the
sacrifice of the Mass: "But whether in the first centuries Orthodox Greece
commemorated the Roman pontiff is unclear" (Rer.
Liturgicar, bk. 2, chap. 11, no. 3). Moreover Isaac
Habertus admits that among the records of the early
age, he has found none to establish that it was customary in the Oriental
Church to commemorate the Roman pontiff during the celebration of Mass: "I
could wish it was done and if it had been done I would approve of it, but even
so I do not read that it was done." But he says that the name of the Roman
Pontiff had been added to that of the Patriarch in the time of Pope Nicholas I,
that is about 858, since the following words are found in several ancient
copies of the Holy Liturgy of John Chrysostom: "Long be the days of most
holy Nicholas the universal pope" (Observationes
ad Pontificale Graecorum,
pt. 8, observ. 12).
But Antonelli, whom
We have praised, argues in his dissertation that it was customary in the Greek
Church to commemorate the Roman Pontiff during Mass long before the period
assigned by Habertus. He proves his point especially
by the fact reported by Nicephorus in his in Historia Ecclesiast., bk. 16, chap. 17, where he
depends on the testimony of a more ancient and serious historian, Basilius Cilix. Acacius, bishop of
But however it may be with this disputed point
of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a
commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the
sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication
which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor
of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly
espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus
Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and
most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422,
Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in
the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present
subject in his letter: "I am greatly astonished at your separation from
the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful
that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees,
says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the
prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church
apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the
Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the
communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the
sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the
Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time" (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810). This letter of
Pelagius has also been used by St. Agobard, the great
archbishop of
13. Moreover it suffices Us to be able to
affirm without peril that at whatever time the practice of praying by name for
the Roman pontiff at Mass was finally accepted by the Greek Church, this
practice was definitely in force in Greek churches many centuries before schism
broke out, and was only broken off after the fatal separation. A letter dated
1053 of Peter, patriarch of
It is said in addition that no discussions on
restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition
that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be
included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on
regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into
effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree
in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due
subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to
remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this
commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.
14. When Michael Palaeologus,
Emperor of Constantinople, in 1263 and thereafter, affirmed his desire to
return in company with his Greek subjects to unity and concord with the Roman
Church, Urban IV aptly proposed the condition "that in sacred ceremonies
from the diptychs, the name of the Pope should be commemorated together with
the four patriarchs" (Nicetas, bk. 5, chap. 2).
And when thereafter the negotiation of this union was again undertaken by
Emperor Michael and Patriarch Giovanni Vecco and was
seriously debated at the General Council of Lyons held in the year of the Lord
1274, the Pope, Blessed Gregory X, with the agreement of the assembled council
fathers, first proposed several indispensable conditions for the effective
negotiation of union. The first of these was "that the Pope be included in the diptych with the other four patriarchs
and commemorated during the holy services" (Nicetas,
as above). And Pachymeres (bk. 5, chap. 22) testifies
that this condition was accepted by the Greeks and carried out in practice:
"There were two immediate results of this arrival of the ambassadors who
brought back word that peace had been made on the strength of the previous
agreements: the deposition of the Patriarch and the public commemoration of the
Pope in holy services."
15. His son Andronicus succeeded Michael Palaeologus as emperor, and was so extreme a supporter of
the schism which had been condemned that he allowed his father's body to be
buried beyond the sacred precinct because he had attempted to establish a union
of the Greek Church with the Latin. Because the emperor could hardly hope for
success in his intended revival of the schism while the Catholic patriarch,
Giovanni Vecco, was leader of the church at
16.
17. This is all We want to say on the first
part of the first Admonition which deals with the obligation of celebrants to
pray for the pope in the sacrifice of the
In agreement with this view are the fathers of
the Synod of Lebanon which occurred in 1736 under the presidency of Joseph Simonius Assemanus, a prelate of
the Roman curia and an Apostolic envoy. In the decrees of this council too,
under the heading de Symbolo Fidei,
ejusque professione,
no. 12, these words are found: "Let us not neglect to repeat the
commemoration of the most holy Roman pontiff, both in Masses and in the divine
services, before the name of the most reverend lord patriarch, as has hitherto
been our custom." After the strictest investigation, We confirmed this
council with Apostolic authority, as may be seen in Our constitution Singularis (Bullarium,
vol. I, no. 31). Peter Arcudius in his work de
Concordia Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis, bk. 2, chap. 39, offers an admonition for
Latin bishops with Greeks living in their dioceses to zealously impel them to
commemorate the Roman pontiff in the Mass, to banish the last shade of
suspicion of any inclination to schism: "The Latin bishops should see to
it that the Greek priests subject to them are in Catholic unity and recognize the
Supreme Pastor, and according to the ancient custom solemnly pray for him"
in the sacrifice of the Mass - the subject under discussion in this passage. In
agreement with this most just admonition, the following provision was made in
Our constitution issued for the Italian Greeks, Etsi
Pastoralis (Bullarium,
vol. 1, 57, sect. 9, no. 4): "Next a commemoration should be made of the
Supreme Roman Pontiff and of the Local Ordinary in Masses and divine
services."
First Admonition-Commemoration of Bishop and
Patriarch
18. Now follows the second part of this first
admonition which, as was mentioned above, obliges the Greek priest during Mass,
after praying for the Roman pontiff, to pray for his own bishop and his
patriarch if they are Catholic. For if either is or both are schismatic or
heretic, a commemoration should not be made.
19. In the Latin Church there is usually no
difficulty in commemorating the bishop in whose diocese the priest celebrates
20. Still in reference to the Latin practice,
We will also note that when a bishop is celebrating Mass, he prays for himself
as an "unworthy servant." This practice is in harmony with the words
of the apostolic constitutions where the celebrant, after praying for others,
prays for himself in these words: "We now beseech you for a man of no
worth, for myself who am offering to You" etc. (Ap. Const.,
bk. 8, in Cotelerius, Opera Patrum Apostolicorum, vol. 1, p. 407). Moreover it should be known that in
Finally it must be remarked that Latin priests
make no commemoration of an archbishop such as a metropolitan in the canon.
This point is also rightly made by P. Merati in his Commentaria ad Gavantum
(pt. 2, head. 8, no. 5) and the case is the same even if the episcopal see is vacant: "But if the bishop, who is
Ordinary of the place in which Mass is being celebrated, has departed this
life, the aforesaid words are omitted" - that is, a commemoration is not
made - "but it is to be noticed that the Vicar Capitular
cannot be named instead of the bishop, since although while the see is vacant
he is Ordinary of that place, he is still not the bishop of that diocese.
Moreover, the archbishop or the patriarch of the province which includes the
diocese of the dead bishop cannot be named, even though he has a certain
jurisdiction over it, since an archbishop or a patriarch is not said to be
Ordinary in the dioceses of his suffragans."
21. Turning now to the Greeks, We consider
first the Italian Greeks. These are entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the
Latin bishop in whose diocese they live, in accordance with constitution 74, Romanus Pontifex,
of Our predecessor, Pope Pius IV. This is to be found in volume two of the Bullar.
Of course in the Dictatus
of Pope St. Gregory VII (can. 10) we find the dictum: "That the name of
the Pope alone be pronounced in the church." This Dictatus
is included in the collections of the councils (Royal Parisian, vol. 26; Labbe, vol. 6, pt. 1). Still We
are well aware that there is a vigorous debate among scholars as to whether
this is an authentic work of the holy pontiff or rather a forgery. Indeed Fr. Mabillon in his treatise De Studiis
Monasticis has ranked this among the more
difficult questions which professors of Church history can engage in solving.
But laying aside this problem also - as to whether the Dictatus
Papae is an authentic work of St. Gregory VII -
the real and pertinent meaning of the Canon quoted is not that in the Latin
Church the name of the diocesan bishop be removed from the Canon of the Mass,
but that the name of Oriental Patriarchs should not be included there.
The Patriarchs indeed professed their agreement
with the condition, that the name of the Roman Pontiff should be replaced in
the Liturgy and that prayers should be offered for him in all the churches of
the east, if in turn the Pope would consent to their names being pronounced in
the Canon of the Mass by Latin priests of the Roman Church and of the other
churches in the Patriarchate of Rome. Lupus wisely notes: "Purposing to
abandon his schism, Michael (Cerularius, Patriarch of
Constantinople) tried to have his name inscribed on the Roman tablets and he
promised to restore the name of the Pope to the tablets of all of his churches.
But Leo (Pope Leo IX) would not consent: for the reciprocal pronouncement of
the names of Patriarchs was practiced only among the equal sister sees of the
eastern patriarchs, but never by the Roman see. For this see is not only sister
but also mother and head of the eastern sees and so has never pronounced any
other name than the bishops" (ad Concilia,
pt. 4, p. 437, Brussels edition). He continues in this way on the following
page: "The names of the eastern patriarchs have never been pronounced by
the Roman church nor for that matter by any Latin
church."
22. The foregoing discussion relates to the
Italian Greeks. But as regards the rest of the Greeks and Orientals, the
admonition in the preface of the Euchologion, which
We are now considering, by no means prevents them from commemorating their
metropolitans and patriarchs during the Mass, but merely forbids this if they
should be schismatic or heretic. It is beyond dispute that the commemoration of
patriarchs in the prayers of the Mass is an ancient custom in the Greek church.
Theodorus Balsamon in his de
Patriarcharum juribus
has written: "It is established that in every
This practice is not absolutely forbidden to
them in the admonition in question, but only in the cases when the metropolitan
or patriarch is schismatic or heretic. This is in accordance with rules which
were established and accepted before the correction of the Euchologion
was undertaken. When this practice was dealt with in the Congregation of the
Holy Office in 1673, the following decree was published: "At the General
Congregation of the Holy Office on June 7, 1673, the question was posed whether
a priest in the town of Lebanon during Mass might name the patriarch of the
Armenians, who is schismatic, with the purpose of praying for him. The petition
for this concession was made with great urgency in order by this means to
attract that people to a greater friendship for the Latins.
The Sacred Congregation responded that it could not be done and should be
utterly forbidden. In the same Congregation on June 20, 1674, there was read a
letter of the nuncio at
23. In harmony with this decision is another
very similar decree of the Congregation on the corrected edition of the Coptic
Missal made in 1732. Among other disputed questions the following was proposed:
"Whether, and in what way, the words in which the priest commemorates the
patriarch, bishop, etc. are to be corrected." This was the answer which
was given: "A rubric should be placed at the beginning of the missal to
advise and inform the priest on points relating to the celebration of
Here is the teaching of
Should the King be Commemorated?
24. In this first admonition, however, there is
no mention at all of commemorating or saying a prayer for an emperor or king
and his whole palace and army. But since this matter is very closely connected
with the other matters mentioned in the first admonition, We judge it
appropriate to append the following remarks.
25. All the euchologies,
whether manuscript or printed, which are earlier than the revision of Leontius, included prayers for the emperor, the king, his
palace, and army. In the May 1, 1746, session of the Congregation for the
Correction of the Euchologion, it was disputed
whether these prayers should be removed. It was decided, with Our subsequent
approval, that "they should be left in the canon or the liturgy." But
since the Greeks of old used to offer these prayers at the prothesis
as well, but later removed them, it was added that "they are not to be said
during the prothesis or preparation." For it
seemed pointless to say such prayers at the prothesis
when they were already being said in the canon, or liturgy." The newly
corrected edition of the Euchologion has treated the
matter in just this way.
26. We Ourselves in Our treatise de Sacrificio Missae, sect. 1,
no. 221, have already discussed the commemoration in the canon of the emperor
or king, as is customary in some districts belonging to their temporal realm.
Cardinal Bona provides evidence that in many Latin churches the name of the
king is commemorated in the canon (Rer. Liturgicar. bk. 2, chap. 11, no. 4). Furthermore Martene in his work de antiquis
Ecclesiae Ritibus, bk. 1, chap. 4, art. 8, no. 9,
after adducing the appropriate evidence, comes to the
following conclusion: "From the unchanging tradition of the Church as it
was received from the Apostles, it is certain that prayers for kings and
princes have always been offered during the sacred mysteries." It is quite
evident that the writer is here relying on the words of the Apostle (1 Tm 2)
commanding that prayers and petitions be made for kings and all who are in high
places, as well as on the text of the apostolic constitutions: "We also
beseech You, Lord, for the king and for those who are in high places and for
all the army that our affairs may prosper" and "Let us pray for kings
and those of exalted power that our affairs may enjoy peace" (Cotelerius, Patrum Apostolicorum, col. 1, bk. 8, chap. 12 and 13). On this
point Gregorius too may be consulted (de Liturgia Rom. Pont., bk. 4, chap. 3, no. 4). However
it may be with the dispute conducted between Balutius
and Lupus, on the date when the emperor's name was replaced by that of the king
in the lands subject to the sway of kings (a question treated at great length
by Lupus (can. 10, Dictatus S. Greg. VII),
it is sufficiently established that in the Latin church a commemoration of the
king is made in those districts in which it has long been an accepted custom or
where a concession of the Apostolic See has allowed it, as Meratus
remarks (ad Gavantum, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 539,
no. 6 of the Roman edition).
27. But among the Oriental peoples this
practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy is common, as may be
seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians and Syrians. But if
it should be asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for
whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven.
Card. Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied
in the chapter quoted above) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature
of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels
since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course
St. Thomas teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in his work de origine Animae that the
sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, his statement
must be understood to include both those who are already members of Christ and
those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art. 2, quest. 2, to the
fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole question should be
assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: "It is certain from
the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it, it is
permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels)." Although
there is such a prohibition against the excommunicated and so against heretics
and schismatics, there is none against infidels and
these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow
commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for
them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the
apostolic constitution. "But someone may ask whether it is permissible if
the king is an infidel as in
28. However, We may leave aside these
statements without further inquiry, since they are unnecessary for justifying
the retention of the commemoration of emperors or kings in the text of the
Greek Euchologion. But it is worth remarking that
when Greek Catholics were asked if, in making these commemorations they
intended to offer prayers for the Turks to whose temporal sovereignty they have
been subject since they were deprived of their own leaders, they answered that
their intention at all times was to pray for Orthodox kings and Christian
princes. This is asserted by Goarius in his in notis ad Euchologium, p. 38,
where he says that when he asked Greek Catholics whether they intended to
include Turks in their prayers, they invariably replied that they meant only
our Christian kings, and that they proclaimed in the churches as lords in faith
and religion those whom they wanted as rulers. For those alone they unfailingly
desired to pray even when the published books suppressed the prayers."
Second Admonition
29. The second of the admonitions in the
preface of the new edition of the Greek Euchologion
is expressed as follows: "In addition the priest in the sacred liturgy
approaches the gifts while singing the glory of God; raising these in a fitting
religious manner above his head, he carries them to the altar in a procession
around and up through the church. Meanwhile the people devoutly bow the head
and kneel as they pray that they may be remembered in this procession of the
gifts. But some of the faithful who kneel think these gifts are the Body and
Blood of Christ and adore them as such, perhaps because they confuse them with
the entry of the presanctified, that is when
previously consecrated bread is carried, and do not understand the difference
between the two carryings. The priest therefore should carefully teach and
inform all the faithful of the difference between these two processions of the
gifts, since in one case they have been changed and sanctified by the word of
God. These gifts should be worshipped and adored most religiously since under
the appearance and symbols of bread and wine, they contain the Body and Blood
of Christ. But the case is different before they are consecrated and
consummated."
The Greater Entrance
30. You already know well that your liturgy has
two entrances, called the smaller and the greater. The smaller entrance is when
the book of the holy Gospel is brought in, but the greater entrance is when the
unconsecrated gifts of bread and wine are carried to the holy altar from the
small altar or table known as the prothesis on which
they were prepared. Accordingly the second sentence of this admonition deals
with the greater, not with the smaller entrance. At the greater entrance, the
practice of this Rite is for either the deacon or the priest to carry over his
head the bread on a paten covered with a veil. The deacon carries the bread
when a solemn Mass is celebrated with a deacon as assistant and minister. On
such an occasion, he holds the paten with the bread above his head with his
left hand and with his right he incenses the priest who is carrying the chalice
with wine. When the priest celebrates without a deacon, he is incensed by the
lector while he holds the paten with the bread over his head with his left hand
and with his right he carries the sacred chalice on a level with his breast. It
is at this greater entrance, then, that the people bow, or, in accordance with
the different customs of different districts, prostrate themselves, and strike
the ground with their foreheads just as if the Body and Blood of Christ the
Lord were contained under the appearances of the bread and wine even before
consecration. "The people everywhere address and adore the King of Heaven
as if He were present in this offering; in Greece they bow very low but avoid
bending the knee so as not to appear to imitate the Latins
even on weekdays; while in Russia they prostrate themselves and strike the
ground with their foreheads" (Peter Arcudius, De
Concordia Eccles. Occid. et Orient., bk. 3, chap.
19).
31. The rite of the greater entrance when a
patriarch or a metropolitan celebrates Mass is described by Christianus
Lupus, Operum super Conciliis,
pt. 3, p. 760 of the
Adoration of Consecrated Hosts
32. You understand also that in accordance with
your Rite during the days of the Lenten fast, only the Mass of the Presanctified is celebrated among you, except on Saturdays
and Sundays and on the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary if
it occurs in the Lenten period as is specified in the Trullan
Canon 52. "On all days of the holy Lenten fast except on Saturday, Sunday,
and the holy day of the Annunciation, the sacred ministry of the Presanctified should take place." As you already know,
the priest who celebrates Mass in Lent on the days when he is permitted to do
so, that is on Saturday and Sunday, consecrates and consumes one host but
reserves another consecrated host. He divides this into as many pieces as will
suffice for the number of Masses of the Presanctified
which are to be celebrated on the following days, at which he will give
communion to himself and to the other communicants, if there are any, from the
Eucharistic bread which was consecrated on the preceding days. This is how Leo Allatius rightly describes the entire ceremony in the prolegomena
to Gabriel Naud's de Missa
Praesanctificatorum, p. 1531, no. 1: "Each
priest counts on his fingers the days of the coming week on which he is going
to celebrate, then breaks off at the offertory as many pieces of bread as will
suffice for the Masses he is going to say. He consecrates these as well as the
piece he will consume on the same day and preserves in the pyx
the consecrated pieces after dipping them in the Lord's Blood, as is customary.
He removes a piece from the pyx at an appropriate
time later, when he is about to celebrate (leaving the others there for future
use), places it on the paten and, after bringing it to the greater altar, he
consumes it."
33. On this occasion likewise a solemn
procession through the church is made. The deacon carries above his head the
sacred pyx in which is contained the sacrament under
the appearance of bread, while the priest carries in his hands a chalice
containing wine mixed with water which has been blessed but not consecrated. If
the priest celebrates alone - since he does not always have the assistance of a
deacon in saying Mass - he carries the pyx in his
left hand over his head and holds the chalice in his right, proceeding in this
way from the small to the larger altar. This is stated by Arcudius
in the work already mentioned, bk. 3, chap. 58:
"The Greeks have the custom in liturgies of the Presanctified
of placing the Sacrament on a paten on a small altar of offering, and of
pouring wine into a chalice without prayers before the ceremony begins. Then about
the middle of the Mass, the priest, if he is celebrating alone, holds the paten
above his head, takes the chalice in his right hand, and brings them to the
larger altar, etc. But if the priest is celebrating this kind of Mass with the
assistance of a deacon, it is customary for him to give the paten with the
Sacrament to the deacon who carries it above his head, while he himself takes
the chalice and follows after the deacon." At that point the people bend
the knee, beat the breast, and adore the consecrated Bread carried by the
priest or by the deacon, as We have mentioned above.
It is claimed that this is why people offer the
same reverence during the greater entrance, when the bread and wine which are
not yet consecrated are carried through the church in a rite of supplication.
This is indeed the problem, and it is on the basis of this that criticisms have
been leveled against the greater entrance. Nicolas Cabasilas
writes: "If, however, there are some who prostrate themselves on the
ground when the priest enters with the gifts, and adore and address these gifts
as if they were the Body and Blood of Christ, these people have been confused
by the entrance of the presanctified gifts and do not
understand the difference between the two kinds of sacrifice; for in the first
kind the gifts are not sanctified and not yet perfected at the entrance, while
in the second kind they are perfected and sanctified and are the Body and Blood
of Christ" (in Expositione Liturgiae, chap. 24). Later Arcudius
gives this account: "Therefore the people through not understanding the
difference between the two kinds of liturgy behave in the same way at ordinary
and presanctified liturgies. And so they make a
serious mistake, since of course when the priest carries the true Body of
Christ on the paten at liturgies of the Presanctified,
it is right that they prostrate themselves on the ground and adore it. But at
sacrifices of the other kind, they should behave with more restraint since the
offertory in these cases is made before the consecration" (Op. cit.
bk. 3, chap. 19). In later chapters of this book, Arcudius
refutes Gabriel, Archbishop of Philadelphia, a
voluminous defender of this rite. Even Goarius, in
the passage quoted above, considered it necessary to adduce some appropriate
arguments in defense of this rite.
The following passage occurs in the latest
edition of a work called Perpetuitas Fidei Catholicae de Sacramento Eucharistiae, adversus Claudium vindicata, p. 68:
that "the Greeks, far from not adoring the sacrament of the Eucharist, are
rather obliged to cleanse themselves, thereby demonstrating that they do not
pass beyond the limits of what is right and do not honor still unconsecrated
bread and wine with the same acts of adoration as they use to reverence them after
consecration." Le Brun asserted without
hesitation that the nature of the rite called for some measure of reformation.
In relating that he observed with his own eyes the performance of this ceremony
among the Armenians, Tournefort (vol. 3, pp. 411f)
expresses a certain indignation. Chardon in the
passage noted above cites from the writings of Tournefort
and Fr. Le Brun, but then leaves the point of the
question undecided. So the fathers of the council held at Zamosc
in 1720, in their decree de celebratione Missarum, sect. 4, unhesitatingly prohibited any
genuflection or bowing of the head while still unconsecrated bread and wine
were being brought from the small altar to the main altar. "The synod
forbids all genuflection and bowing of the head while the bread of oblation is
being brought for consecration from the smaller altar to the main altar during
the period of the offertory. It commands the parish priests to admonish the
people on this matter, to prevent their exposure to the danger of idolatry."
In making this decree, the fathers may have had in mind the incident related in
2 Kings 18 of Ezechiah, King of Judah, who broke the
bronze snake made by Moses because the children of Israel burned incense for it
even up to his time.
34. We were able to gather the preceding
passages from the books which have treated of this rite. Now We will add the
opinions and decisions regarding this rite which emerged both in the
Congregations convened under Urban VIII and in those which were held in Our
days, whose decrees We Ourselves subsequently approved.
35. It was first prudently observed that to
abolish the ceremony of the greater entrance (a course which incidentally would
have put the blade to the root, as the saying is) would be extremely odious to
the Greek church. It would also be inconsistent with the established practice
of the Latin church which had always tried to preserve as much as possible the
Greek rite in the Greek church. Such a course would be all the more
unacceptable because the ceremony is ancient. It is usually said in explanation
of this rite that it preserves an ancient custom in reference to the triumphal
entrance of Christ when He came from
36. In the second place, attention was directed
to the difference between the words sung during the transference of the presanctified and those sung by the clergy during the
procession of the greater entrance. In the latter case the words are, "As
men who are about to welcome the king of all things," and these point not
to a king who is present, but to one who is to come hereafter. In the former
case they omit the hymn of the cherubim and repeat the following words:
"Behold the mystical and consummated sacrifice." So great is the
difference that everyone, even men of the slightest intelligence, can
distinguish between the two ceremonies. For in the transference of the Presanctified, Jesus Christ is shown as present under the
appearances of bread, while in the ceremony of the greater entrance the same
Lord is referred to, not as present under the appearances of bread and wine,
but as very soon to be present after the words of consecration have been pronounced
by the priest.
External Acts of Adoration
37. Thirdly, it was considered that the Greeks
who are learned in religious matters understand fully that the Body and Blood
of the Lord are not yet present under the appearances of bread and wine during
the greater entrance. If they also know, as they surely must, that acts of
worship (latria) are due to God alone, no one can justly suspect that
they intend to offer worship to still unconsecrated species by the external
actions of veneration which they practice at the entrance of the offerings.
These same signs of external reverence are usually offered at different times
to the Creator and to created things. Thus the holy Scriptures say that Abraham
adored the angels, that Jacob more than once prostrated himself before his
brother Esau, and that the prophet Nathan did likewise in the presence of
David. The condemnation of this Greek rite is unnecessary also because worship
(latria) is not constituted by external acts alone, but particularly by
the inner disposition of the mind which determines the external actions.
Moreover if the Greeks at the Mass of the Presanctified
show reverence by the same acts of external adoration to the bread which is
consecrated and at the same time to the wine contained in the chalice which is
admittedly not consecrated, they are not for this reason accused of adoring
with an equal act of worship the bread which has been consecrated and the wine
which has only been blessed in the Mass of the Presanctified.
This accusation is not made, of course, because external actions are guided by
the mind. Therefore in accordance with different intentions, one and the same
act can convey at one time the adoration of worship, at another the implication
of a lesser reverence.
This point sufficiently establishes that even
if during the greater entrance, in the presence of the still unconsecrated
bread and wine, the Greeks perform the same external acts of adoration as they
are accustomed to offer to the Eucharistic bread and consecrated chalice, it
cannot be asserted that they worship ordinary bread and unconsecrated wine. For
every action should be measured by the intent, which can direct the same
external actions after the consecration to express an adoration of worship
towards the Eucharistic Bread and Wine. It can also exclude the act of worship
from the performance of the same actions before the consecration at the solemn
entrance of the offerings. So the following passage of Leo Allatius
is relevant: "This service is not called worship, which is due to Got
alone, but it is such as is demanded by the veneration of creatures. For a
gesture of external reverence such as uncovering the head, kissing the hands,
joining them in an attitude of supplication, stretching them out, raising them
on high and the like, as well as kneeling and prostrating oneself on the
ground, is offered not only in adoration of God but of creatures too. No wrong
is done in such cases provided that we mentally distinguish God the Creator
from the creation, and a more excellent creature from a less excellent one. So
through external gestures of the body, service rendered to God in adoration is
considered worship not on account of the nature of these actions, but on
account of the intention which determines them, since otherwise in their mere
nature they are indifferent. For the inner will and intention of pleasing the
divine honor through these external actions makes these acts suitable for the
service of God, and allows the external adoration of Got to be exercised through
them" (Tractat. de Missa
Praesanctificatorum, no. 8).
St. Thomas teaches as follows: "Adoration
chiefly consists in an inner reverence of God, but in a secondary way in
certain bodily signs of humility, just as we bend the knee to show how weak we
are in comparison with God and we prostrate ourselves to proclaim that, of
ourselves, we are nothing" (Summa Theol. 2.2, quest. 84, art. 82,
answer to the second). In explaining this teaching, Sylvius
adds these words: "It is fitting that adoration chiefly consist in an
interior reverence for God, but secondarily in certain bodily signs. This is
true, although there is hardly any bodily sign of reverence or service which
cannot be offered in homage to a creature as well as to God. Consequently
external acts of homage must be distinguished on the basis of the intention of
the offerer. For if he intends by an external mark of
reverence to offer an honor appropriate only to God and to honor Him as
supreme, then such a service will pertain to divine worship; but if it is
intended to offer reverence to an outstanding creature pleasing to God, it will
be an instance of the service of Dulia or Hyperdulia. I said
"hardly" since no doubt there is an external sacrifice which can be
offered only to God." Thus Sylvius states that
the one outer sign which necessarily implies a service of Latria is an
external sacrifice which is most definitely offered to God alone, as is shown
at length by St. Thomas too (Summa Theol. 2.2, quest. 85, art. 2). So we
read in the Acts of the Apostles that when the Laodiceans
thought that Paul and Barnabas were gods, they at once considered the need of
offering sacrifice to them.
Suarez hands on precisely the same doctrine:
"External acts are not of their own nature fixed to the extent that they cannot
be performed both to reverence God and to honor a creature, etc. Therefore, in
these external acts, the distinction of the Latria due to God alone from the
reverence of a creature depends chiefly on the inner intention" (in 3.
part. Divi Thomae, vol.
1, quest. 25, art. 2, disput. 61, sect. 4). The same
writer, it is true, adds a little later that it is not only the agent's inner
will which confers on an external act the nature of divine reverence; the act
can become such and be so considered if such a meaning is assigned to it by one
who has the requisite authority: "Apart from inner intention a public
imposition must be considered. For if these signs are imposed by sufficient
authority and power to signify God and His service, they can only be used for
the service of God. Then if such service is imparted to creatures, it will be
at least external idolatry even if it does not proceed from the intention or
arises from a mistaken judgment." But this teaching can have no
application to Our present subject for there exists nowhere a decree of public
authority that the external acts described above as performed by the Greeks at
the procession through the church at the greater entrance must be considered as
acts and signs of a service of Latria.
38. Fourthly and finally, the Congregation for
the Correction of the Euchologion at its meeting on
September 5, 1745, discussed the question of whether the rite of the greater
entrance which We have been describing should be abolished or corrected. After
full discussion, it decided that no innovations should be made; we subsequently
confirmed this decision. No different, of course, were the opinions of the
Congregations which examined this very question in the time of Urban VIII.
However they advised that Bishops and others who have the care of souls should
be sure to teach the uninstructed laity that the Body and Blood of Our Lord
Jesus Christ are not present under the appearances of the sacred gifts while
these are being carried in solemn rite from the prothesis
to the main altar, since they have not yet been consecrated. Therefore, the extemal acts of reverence displayed towards the still
unconsecrated gifts are not performed to offer the service of Latria, which is
due to God alone, but to render a lesser service directed to the approaching
transubstantiation of those gifts into the Body and Blood of the Lord.
A similar measure was employed by the fathers
of the Council of Trent when they discussed the veneration and service of
sacred images. They decided, that while no change should be made in the ancient
practice of the Church in this matter, it was incumbent on the bishops and on
others who teach to instruct the Christian people on the relevant points
(session 25, Decreto de invocatione,
et veneratione, et Reliquiis Sanctorum, et Sacris Immaginibus). With more immediate relevance to Our
subject, Goarius in the passage mentioned earlier
likewise advised that the rite of the greater entrance should not be abrogated,
but that the people should be taught with appropriate proofs: "Certainly
the faith of that simple people should be instructed, but their devotion should
never be quenched nor their external cult wholly abolished." So too, Philipus de Carboneano in his Appendix
ad Tract. P. Antoine de Eucharistia, sect. 3, concludes
that "there are no grounds for blame in this case, but the simple people
should be taught not to reverence those gifts as the Body and Blood of
Christ."
But if you take this measure, as We are
confident you shall, you will wholly escape the accusation levelled
by Arcudius at the Greek bishops of his day. He
stated that while the people then lived in the darkest ignorance, the bishops
could easily have cured their blindness by means of appropriate teaching, if
they had not refrained from undertaking this task through fear of worldly
censure. "The Greek bishops could and should carefully advise the people,
and if they worked together they could achieve much. But perhaps they
themselves are afflicted with the same disease and live in the same error on account
of their ignorance. Or if some of them indeed understand, these few fear the
majority because they fear to lose earthly glory and human regard and they
dread that their name will be trodden underfoot by the mob like the heretics'.
And so they give an excellent imitation of the others' error, at least
outwardly, and they ignore these matters in deep silence, pretending they do
not exist. So the blind lead the blind and they all fall into the ditch" (de
Concordia, bk. 3, chap. 19).
39. Furthermore, before the celebrant carries
the sacred gifts from the small table to the main altar, he approaches the prothesis clad in the sacred vestments and divides the
bread for consecration into many pieces. The large piece is offered to show due
service to God who is best and greatest, in remembrance of Our Savior Jesus
Christ. The other smaller pieces, called merides, are
likewise offered to Almighty God, but of these one is offered in honor of the
glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God; another in honor of St. John the Baptist,
the holy Apostles, and the other saints whom the priest names; another for the
salvation of the living whose names are mentioned by the priest; another for
the dead who are likewise commemorated by name; another in honor of the saint
whose feast day is being celebrated. The priest may still offer the Sacrifice
especially for the person or persons of his choice. That this rite of dividing
the Bread into pieces is long established is proved by Montfaucon's
edition of the Typico of the Empress Irene (Analect. Graecor.
vol. 1, chap. 34). But if a bishop or the priest who takes the part of the main
celebrant concelebrates with other priests, and deacons also assist as
ministers in the service, not only each priest but each deacon as well offers
one larger host together with the smaller merides.
If at the end any of the smaller pieces have not been consumed by the celebrant
or celebrants, they are distributed to those present who wish to receive holy
communion. All these matters are related in careful detail by Cardinal Bona, Rer. Liturgicar,
bk. 2, chap. 1, no. 7; Arcudius de Concordia,
bk. 2, chap. 9; and Goarius, ad Rituale Graecorum, in notis ad Liturgiam S. Joannis Chrys., p. 98f.
40. There is no dispute among Catholics about
the rite of the large and smaller hosts, called merides.
For when this rite was examined at the ecumenical council of
41. Catholics, however, have disputed whether
the oblation can be performed by the deacons, as We mentioned above. Arcudius shows that this is wholly unlawful for them
according to the Sacred Canons (bk. 3, chap. 17). Goarius
states that oblation by the deacon was not an accepted usage in the great
42. St. Ambrose extolled the virtue of St.
Lawrence, who as a deacon desired to be led to martyrdom together with Pope St.
Sixtus. He imagines him speaking as follows:
"Test me, and see if you have appointed a suitable minister to be
entrusted with the distribution of the Lord's Blood!" We know, of course,
that some copies read "consecration" for "distribution,"
but here "consecration" merely means the ministry of assistance given
to the consecrating priest. Peter of Blois says: "to us deacons the consecration
of the saving Host is entrusted, not so that we may consecrate it but that we
may humbly help those who do" (epistle 123). Similar is the explanation of
Peter Cantor given in Menard, in notis et observationibus ad librum Sacramentorum S. Gregorii, p.
287. It has always been forbidden to subdeacons to
administer the Eucharist to the people either under the appearance of bread or
under the appearance of wine, according to canon 25 of
43. Now the Congregations which met under Urban
VIII, as well as those during Our pontificate, carefully examined the question
of whether the oblation by the deacons at the prothesis
should be abolished. The Congregation held on January 3, 1745, issued a
directive that "no innovations should be made," and We gave this
directive Our approval. For the reasons in favor of this rite adduced by
Cardinal Bona seemed stronger and weightier than those assembled by Arcudius for its abolition. So in the new edition of the Euchologion, the rite of oblation by the deacon remains
unchanged. Although this rite is not mentioned in the statement of the second
admonition which We have hitherto discussed, We still thought it proper to
enter a little on the subject here. For not only is it one of the sacred
actions which are performed at the prothesis to which
We have directed the foregoing remarks, but We also avail Ourselves of every
occasion to assure you that the Roman church is not at all hostile to your
rites. Rather it makes every effort to preserve them unchanged when they
contain no error or disgrace.
Third Admonition-Sacrament of Extreme Unction
44. We come now to the third admonition which
consists of two parts and is expressed as follows: "The priests should
remember that the sacrament of holy oil, called euchelaeon,
was instituted by Christ as a heavenly medicine for the health of the body as
well as that of the soul. Accordingly it is to be given only to the sick at the
time they desire it and while they are still in possession of their faculties.
So coming with faith and a devout will to be anointed with the holy oil, they
will receive additional grace from the sacrament. Likewise it must be
understood that although bishops of the
45. This sacrament is called "extreme
unction" by both the Latins and the Greeks. At
the second general council of
46. We shall not speak in this letter of the
institution of this sacrament by Christ or of its effect. Nor shall We deal
with the rules to be observed in administering it, namely that it should be
conferred not on those who are in good health but only on the faithful who are
seriously ill while they are still fully conscious. We shall not treat, either,
of certain rites of the Greek church, such as the blessing of the oil of the
sick by a priest and not only by a bishop as is the Latin practice, or the
administering of the sacrament of extreme unction by many priests rather than
by one only. For We have given a detailed account of all these matters in Our
treatise de Synodo Diocesana,
bk. 8, chaps. 1-8 of the latest edition. But simply to cast light on the first
part of the third admonition, We will add that both in the time of Urban VIII
and in the earlier years of Our pontificate, a lengthy dispute took place
concerning whether words should be struck from the Greek Euchologion
which apparently suggested that it was permissible to confer this sacrament
even on those in good health. In the assembly on September 3, 1747, the
Congregation decided that no changes should be made in the text, but that
necessary points of observance should be mentioned in an admonition placed at
the start of the Euchologion. We then approved this
decision. This has been done in the words quoted above which warn Greek priests
not to confer the sacrament of extreme unction on those in good health, but
only on those who are seriously ill. There was clearly no need to alter the
text of the Euchologion at this point, since the
words could be interpreted correctly. For it does not state that the sacrament
may be conferred on those in good health, but that persons who come to the
church may also be anointed. This can be easily understood of those who, though
grievously ill, are still able either to walk to the church or to be brought
there by the assistance of others to ask for the sacrament of extreme unction.
Examples of this kind can be found even in the western church as can be seen in
Martene, de antiquis
Ecclesiae Ritibus, bk. 2, chaps. 7, art. 2, no.
7-8, and in Mabillon's preface to the first century
in Acta Sanctorum Ordinis
Benedictini, sec. 9, no. 101.
47. The two following points are to be noticed
in connection with the first part of the third admonition. First, even though
the Greeks have been clearly forbidden to confer the sacrament of extreme
unction on any but the seriously ill, they have not been prohibited from
anointing sick or possessed people with the oil of the lamp, which is kept in
the church, as well as others who ask for it either out of devotion or for
deliverance from some affliction. For the oil which is kept in the lamp was not
consecrated by the bishop or priest for use in administering extreme unction.
We are well aware that the request has previously been made for permission for
the Greeks to be anointed with the oil of extreme unction in cases other than
serious illness without the sacramental form being spoken by the priest. They
of course reasoned that the sacrament is conferred not by the mere application
of the matter, but necessarily requires that the form be pronounced at the same
time. But this request was not acceptable since We can never permit a sacrament
established by Christ to be converted into any whimsical ceremony even if it is
a pious one. This is rightly observed by Fr. de Carboneano
in his Appendix ad Tractatum P. Antoine de Extrema Unctione, sect. 4, p. 661. Despite the affirmation of Quintaduenas
that parish clergy may send the holy oil of the sick upon request to the ill
and others in order that they may anoint themselves in their sickness (Treatise
5, de Extreme Unctione, sing. 11), anyone who
attempts to do this is punished with heavy penalties by the ecclesiastical
tribunal, either for misuse of a sacrament of the church or being under
suspicion of unorthodox belief concerning the sacrament, as Clericatus
aptly remarks (de Savamento Extremae
Unctionis, sect. 70, no. 32).
48. Furthermore, since it is forbidden to
administer the sacrament of extreme unction except in a case of serious
illness, a penitent may no means be obliged to receive anointing with oil of
extreme unction as penance or satisfaction for his sins. As Pope Eugene IV
established in his Decretum pro Instructione Armenorum,
satisfaction for sins or penance imposed by confessors on their penitents
should consist chiefly in prayers, fasting, and almsgiving. In times past such
anointing was introduced among eastern Christians. That it was purely
ceremonial may be gathered from canon 74 or the Council of Nicaea (from the
Arabic translation, Harduin, Collect. vol. 1,
p. 492). There it is decreed that if one of the faithful shall live impurely
with an unbeliever, he may be reconciled to the Church after extended penance
"through holy water and the oil of the sick." This was the source of
a further abuse. According to Joannes Nathanael, de
Moribus Graecorum, and
Francois Richard, de Expeditione Sacra, rich
penitents were often obliged to receive this anointing as penance for their
sins; thus this practice was quite profitable for the clergy.
Pope Innocent IV opposed this serious error in
his letter to the Bishop of Tusculum: "Confessors may not impose on anyone
any mere anointing in satisfaction for their sins" (sect. 6). The synod of
Nicosia passed a similar decree (Harduin, Collect.
vol. 7, p. 1114) and We renewed this precept in Our constitution, Etsi Pastoralis,
sect. 5 (Bullarium, vol. 1, no. 57). Thiers, de
Superstit., bk. 8, chap. 6, should also be
consulted. Arcudius, moreover, refers to Greek
priests who impose this on their penitents; he states that they usually employ
the sacramental words in performing the anointing. He criticizes them severely
for this (de Concordia, bk. 5, chap. 4, sect. Ego praesentem).
However, Goarius asserts that the Greeks did not
intend to confer the sacrament in performing this anointing: "They do not
consider that the infirmities of the soul are removed automatically by the
anointing and prayers, but only that the devotion of the penitent or the
prayerful charity of the minister, that is, the intention of the agent, may
possibly have this effect" (in notis ad Euchologium, p. 350). Still, even he criticizes this
custom since, as he says, the Greeks should be careful to act in this affair in
accordance with the teaching of the holy Roman Church. Many serious errors stem
from this practice of anointing: either the sacrament of extreme unction is
conferred on one in good health and so incapable of receiving this sacrament, or the matter and form of the sacrament is used
without the intention of conferring the sacrament itself.
49. The second part of the third admonition
concerns the holy chrism. The Greeks make this not only from oil and balm, but
with additional spices. This section indicates that the addition of spices is
not forbidden, but that the chrism must consist of oil and balm. So even if
some of those spices are absent, sacred chrism may still be prepared.
50. The imposition of hands while conferring
this sacrament is not prescribed for the Greeks. In his treatise de Confirmatione, chap. 4, Morinus
writes: "The Latins have always joined the
imposition of hands to anointing, but the Greeks have always kept these rites
separate and have used only anointing in conferring this sacrament. Neither old
nor new euchologies mention the imposition of
hands." The same point is made by Goarius, in
Euchologio, p. 299, no. 28. Renaudot
in his Opus de Perpetuitate, vol. 5, bk. 2,
chap. 12, affirms that for many centuries in the Greek church no evidence is to
be found of an imposition of hands in conferring the sacrament of Confirmation.
As authorities for this statement he cites the modern Greek theologians, Simeon
of Thessalonica, Gabriel of Philadelphia, Sirinus,
and others. Recently Chardon, in Historia Sacramentorum, bk. 1, chap. 1, De Confirmatione, argues that in earlier centuries the
Greek church did include the imposition of hands in the rite of Confirmation,
but he does grant that for many centuries since then, there is no evidence for
this. Finally Guiseppe Agostino
Orsi O. P., at present the master of Our apostolic
palace, proves by marshalling much learned evidence in his historical
theological dissertation, de Chrismate Confirmatorio, that among the Greeks the matter of the
sacrament of Confirmation is the holy oil, not the imposition of hands. This
gives no grounds for asserting, as some have rashly done, that the sacrament of
Confirmation does not exist in the Greek church because it does not include the
imposition of hands. For no one can believe that the sacrament of Confirmation
did not exist for many centuries in so large a portion of the Christian world
especially in a church renowned for its learning and its sanctity. Goarius (loc. Cit.) gives an apt expression to Our opinion: "Few men in my judgment will attempt to
assert that so large a portion of the Christian world, which is learned and
loyal to apostolic and ecclesiastical rules, either rejected, neglected or
remained in ignorance of this perfect sacrament."
51. The main issue of this unfair and untimely
disagreement between the Latin and Greek churches derives from the
controversies in which our theologians habitually engage. Some dispute whether
the Apostles conferred the sacrament of Confirmation by laying
on of hands or by using holy oil, and as usual some assert what others deny.
They also dispute whether the imposition of hands alone is the matter of this
sacrament. Some hold that this is the case, while others consider the holy oil
to be the remote matter of the sacrament; in this case the application of this
oil in the sign of the Cross to the forehead of the confirmand
is considered the proximate matter. These last argue from the text of the
decree for the Instruction of the Armenians published by Pope Eugenius IV: "The second sacrament is Confirmation
whose matter is chrism. Chrism is made from oil and balm which has been blessed
by the bishop. The oil signifies a good conscience and the balm, good
reputation." In speaking of the imposition of hands which the Apostles
used in conferring this sacrament, Pope Eugenius
adds: "In place of that imposition of hands, however, Confirmation is
given in the Church." Finally, others join together the imposition of
hands and the chrism, stating that both are equally the matter of the sacrament
of Confirmation, but that either is insufficient by itself. Only when these two
are joined together do they comprise the full matter of the sacrament.
As regards the imposition of hands, some think
it consists in the stretching out of the hands of the bishop towards the confirmands at the start of the ceremony while he is saying
the opening prayers. Others understand it to consist in the very act of
anointing of the forehead of the confirmand by the
bishop, since it is impossible to anoint the forehead without laying a hand on
it. These are controversies which engage our theologians, and everyone may
embrace the interpretation he finds most persuasive. But it is wrong for anyone
to assert that the sacrament of Confirmation does not exist in the Greek
Church. For this opinion is contradicted by ancient eastern practice as found
in the Greek Rituals which make no reference to the imposition of hands as
matter either sufficient or insufficient of the sacrament of Confirmation. And
this practice has never been condemned or criticized by the Apostolic See
although it was well-known. So to escape the labyrinth of this difficulty, a
different line must be followed, a line which is open to the careful seeker.
This line avoids a condemnation of a view which has many supporters among the
orthodox, on the basis of an uncertain and undefined proposition.
52. What is beyond dispute should be stated:
that in the Latin church, the sacrament of confirmation is conferred by the
priest pronouncing the words of the sacramental form while he makes the sign of
the Cross on the forehead of the candidate with holy chrism, that is olive oil
mixed with balm and blessed by the bishop. In those areas where genuine balm is
not be to found, the popes have readily allowed the use of a sweet-smelling
juice or liquid, generally taken for real balm, in preparing chrism. This is
clear from constitution 180 of St. Pius V which grants this privilege to the
bishops of the
Likewise in the Greek church the sacrament of
confirmation is conferred by means of holy oil. This is made from olive oil and
balm, but in addition twenty-three kinds of other herbs are used as well as a
little wine. These herbs are carefully listed by Habert,
in librum Pontificalem
Ecclesiae Graecae, observation 5, on the rite of
chrism; and by Berti, Theologia,
vol. 7, bk. 32, chap. 5. The latter, however, thinks it practically impossible
for the Greeks to add all the herbs mentioned by Habert
since some of them are so unknown that they receive scant mention in
dictionaries and specialized writings on plants and herbs. Whatever the truth of
this question, the rite has been left unchanged in the admonition under
discussion, since the practice of adding these herbs is an ancient one. The
Greeks are merely advised that they should not consider these herbs essential
for the matter of the sacrament; they should recognize the sacrament as valid
when it is performed only with oil and balm blessed by the bishop, even though
some of the herbs which they usually add in accordance with their rite are
lacking. Wisely and with good cause did the fathers at the Synod of Zamoscia in 1720 affirm that whatever herbs were added to
the balm, care should be taken "that the largest part of the chrism should
always be oil mixed with balm" (sect. 2, de Confirmatione).
53. Now that the second part of the third admonition
has been completed, We shall add here in the form of an appendix some comments
well-suited to Our present purpose, since they are related both to the doctrine
of the sacrament of confirmation and to the revision of the Euchologion.
54. The form of the sacrament of confirmation
in the Greek church, according to the generally received opinion, consists in
the words: "the sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit" uttered by the
minister while making the sign of the Cross with the holy oil on the forehead of
the candidate. This is clear from canon 7 of the First Council of
Constantinople (Harduin, Collect. vol. I, p.
811) as Cardinal Bessarion correctly understands the
words of that canon (in Opuscolo de Eucharistia, printed in the Library of the Fathers, vol.
26, p. 765, Lyons edition): "The Second Ecumenical Council gives the words
of consecration for holy chrism in the seventh canon as follows: 'While signing
them, that is while anointing them with the most holy chrism, we say: the sign
of the gift of the Holy Spirit.' According to them these words confer the
sacrament of confirmation." But although this statement of the Cardinal
has been contested by Lupus, in notis ad Canonem 95. Concilii Trullani, he is not likely to win much support for his
opinion since his antagonist is Cardinal Bessarion. Arcudius draws attention to this point when he cites Bessarion's statement and continues: "Bessarion speaks thus and certainly no one could excel him
in knowledge of the practices of the eastern church in administering the
sacraments" (bk. 2, chap. 7). Goarius shares
this opinion (in notis ad Euchologium,
p. 302, no. 31). So too does Habert (in suis notis ad Pontificale
Graecorum, observ. 4,
n. 2). It would be easy to assemble many other testimonies, but it will suffice
to state what the Synod of Zamoscia said when
treating the sacrament of confirmation: "The form of the sacrament which
is recommended by the approved Euchologia which are
more ancient than the schism itself, is this: 'The sign of the gift of the Holy
Spirit, amen' and this should be said once only while the anointing is
conferred."
55. The decree of St. Methodius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, is well-known in the Greek church. Methodius was Patriarch
about the middle of the ninth century and tirelessly strove to call the
wanderers back home to holy unity. His decree lays down the method of restoring
to the Church those who have left it and subsequently returned: "At the
end of the prayer he takes the holy oil in accordance with the custom of the baptized,
and anoints him, making the sign of the Cross on his forehead, eyes, nostrils,
mouth, both ears, hands, breast, and shoulders while he says: 'the sign of the
gift of the Holy Spirit."'
This passage certainly gives rise to a great
difficulty, for apparently it must be admitted either that the words "the
sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit" are not the form of the sacrament of
confirmation in the Greek church or that this sacrament is conferred a second
time on those who have already received it validly once, if after the sin of
apostasy they desire to return to the Church. The latter view is of course
contrary to the established opinion that sacraments, which impress a character
on the soul, can never be conferred again on those who have received them validly
once. This was defined by the Council of Trent, session 7, on the sacraments in
general, canon 9. There is no use in appealing to
canon 7 of the Council of Constantinople, which was mentioned above. This canon
lays down that Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, and Apollinarians who turn from their heresy and come to the
Church are to be received with holy chrism. This ruling refers only to these
heretics, since they confer the sacrament of confirmation invalidly, if at all;
the decree of St. Methodius though is general and applies to all who wish to
return after leaving the Church. Moreover, since provisions similar to those of
the decree of Methodius are made in some euchologies
in the section on the reconciliation of penitents, the same difficulty arises in
these cases.
56. The subtlety of scholars has been fully
deployed to solve this problem. Some assert that the decree in question was not
issued by St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople in 842, but by a different
Methodius, the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1240. But Goarius states that he saw several documents anterior to
the latter Methodius which assign the decree to St. Methodius the Patriarch (in
notis ad ipsum Decretum in his elucidation of the Euchologion,
p. 698). That is enough to deprive this solution of its weight.
Others grant that the words "the sign of
the gift of the Holy Spirit" are the form of the sacrament of
confirmation, and recognize that the same words are to be said during the
anointing of repentant apostates who are being received back into the Church in
accordance with the decree of St. Methodius. They think, however, that this
does not give grounds for saying that the sacrament of confirmation has been
conferred on men who have already received it, since the intention of the
minister is necessary for the conferring of the sacraments. In this case it is
quite clear that the intention of the minister is not to confer the sacrament
but to reconcile a returned apostate to the Church. This solution is embraced
by the following writers: Du Hamel, Theologiae,
vol. 6, p. 383, Paris 1605; Goarius, in notis ad Eucholog., p. 598; Tournely, in Tractatu de Confirmatione, p. 612f; and Assemanus
the Younger, Codex Liturgicus, bk. 3, De Confirmatione, p. 63.
However, many others are dissatisfied with this
solution. Juveninus, in particular, raises two
objections. In the first place he notices that there is no Greek evidence to
suggest that it is not the minister's intention to confer the sacrament of
confirmation when he reconciles an apostate by anointing him with holy oil and
using words which contain the form of the sacrament. He suggests secondly that
if a minister applies the matter and form of a sacrament to one who is not
capable of receiving it, his act is wrong and sinful, even if his intention is
not to confer the sacrament.
Finally, others point out that evidence from
the early centuries establishes that apostates in the Western church were
sometimes reconciled by an imposition of hands. They admit that it is now
forbidden to confer the sacrament of confirmation a second time on those who
have already validly received it, but they claim that it was not so in the
early days of the Church. Hence, they conclude that it should not seem so
strange that the decree of St. Methodius, which relates to the Eastern church,
requires returned apostates to be confirmed a second time despite their first
valid confirmation.
But this argument is fragile. For some of the
early evidence states plainly that apostates were
received back by the imposition of hands alone. If this is to be understood as
the conferring of confirmation, it will have to be shown that this sacrament
was then conferred by the imposition of hands alone without any anointing. If
it is said, and there is some evidence to this effect, that holy oil as well as
the imposition of hands was used in reconciling this type of penitent, it will
still have to be shown what form of words if any was used by the minister who
imposed hands and anointed with chrism in order to establish that the sacrament
was repeated. Marcus Rehmensis describes many types
of imposition of hands in his treatise on in Tractatu
de variis Capitibus
Ecclesiae, chap. 18. The author of the Gloss on the
57. So a different way must be found to solve
the difficulty under discussion. First of all, as regards the decree of St.
Methodius, the text We gave above is quite different from that found in the
much-used Annals of Cardinal Baronius for 842
A.D. The text given by Baronius does not prescribe
the use of the words "the sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit" in
receiving back an apostate, although it requires that he be anointed with holy
oil. The text reads: "Let them be anointed with chrism as those who are
baptized are usually anointed." Even admitting that these words are
authentic rather than a later addition as there is some reason to believe,
their obvious sense will always be that when an apostate is received back, the
same parts of the body should be anointed as are anointed when Confirmation is
administered after Baptism. And since no mention is made of saying the words:
"The sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit," the whole force of the
problem is dispersed.
There is the additional consideration that the
legates sent by Pope Nicholas I to
58. The occurrence in some of the euchologies of the words, "the sign of the gift of the
Holy Spirit," in conjunction with anointing when reconciling the repentant
is to be attributed to the interpolation of schismatics.
Theodore Balsamon convinced them that any Latin who
seceded to the Greeks should be confirmed again. This is stated by Gregory Protosyncellus in his Apologia against Marcus of
Ephesus (Harduin, Collect., vol. 9, p. 640).
But the use of the words in question is not prescribed in the many manuscript
copies of the Euchologion examined and compared by Joannes Matthaeus Cariophylus Cydonius, a
trustworthy witness, according to Arcudius, de
Reformat., bk. 2, chap. 18. Neither are they found
in the famous Euchologion of Grottaferrata,
a point of great importance. Therefore the Congregations for the Correction of
the Euchologion which met in the time of Urban VII
and in Our day decreed with Our approval that the rite of reconciling penitents
should be printed in the revised Euchologion exactly
as it is described in the Euchologion of Grottaferrata; this has been done. At the meeting of the
Congregation on January 7, 1748, the question was raised as to whether the rite
of receiving back apostates on their return to the Church should be made to
conform to the decree of St. Methodius. It was pointed out that this anointing
was to be performed in the way that those who are baptized are anointed, but
that the requirement of saying at the same time the words, "the sign of
the gift of the Holy Spirit," was to be found only in a few modem euchologies. Therefore the Congregation of February 18, decreed that "the euchology
should be revised to conform to the patriarchal euchology
of Cardinal Bassarion, now of Grottaferrata."
On receiving this report, We examined the matter and gave Our approval to the
decree.
Fourth Admonition-Removing Impurities
59. Next We must deal with the fourth
admonition, which concerns the removal of certain impurities by blessings and
prayers which are included in the Euchologion. The
words of the admonition are: "Finally, it should be known that if anything
unclean or defiled chances to fall in a well or other receptacle of liquid, or
if an unclean thing is touched or eaten, or if an impure animal is born or dies
in a church, the priests of the eastern church in accordance with the custom of
their Church use the prayers and blessings contained in the Euchologion.
However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as
everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ."
60. In the revised Euchologion,
just as in the Euchologion of Grottaferrata,
once Cardinal Bessarion's, and in the most ancient
manuscripts, there is a prayer which mentions the distinction made in the old
Law between clean and unclean foods as well as the uncleanness in the eyes of
the Law of anyone who ate unclean food. The prayer goes on to say that the one
who has eaten unclean foods cannot receive the precious Body and Blood of
Christ without sin. The contents and expressions of this prayer and others like
it occasioned a discussion of whether one might well suspect that the
observance of the legal ceremonies of the old Law was being added to or
retained alongside the new law and the Gospel. To understand whether there are
any grounds for this suspicion, We will touch briefly on the following
considerations. They will throw light on all aspects of the question and the
reason for each detail will be plain.
61. The first consideration is that the
ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that
they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the
Gospel. Since, then, the distinction made by the old Law between clean and
unclean foods belongs to the ceremonial precepts, it may justly be affirmed
that such a distinction no longer exists and ought not be insisted on. It is true
that I the holy Apostles forbade the faithful to eat blood or the flesh of
animals which had been strangled. This view was expressed by James at the
Council of Jerusalem: "Therefore I judge that those of the Gentiles who
turn to God should not be disturbed, but that we should write to them to
abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from unchastity,
from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood" (Acts 15). But it is
clear that this was ordained to remove all occasion of disagreement between Jewish
and Gentile converts to Christ. Since this reason has long since vanished, its
consequence should also be said to have vanished. "Similarly, we profess
that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the
rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus
Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the
Gospel. The distinction of clean and unclean foods found in the old Law
pertains to the ceremonies which have passed away with the rise of the Gospel.
The Apostles' prohibition on food offered to idols, blood, and the meat of
strangled animals was suitable at that time to remove cause for disagreement
between Jews and Gentiles; but since the reason for this prohibition has ceased
to be, the prohibition too has come to an end."
62. The preceding words are from the Profession
of Orthodox Faith which Pope Urban VIII required of Orientals, as published in
1642 by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. They are in harmony
with the teaching of
63. The second consideration is that although
the ceremonial precepts of the old Law have come to an end with the
promulgation of the Gospel, and the new Law does not contain any precept which
distinguishes between clean and unclean foods, nevertheless the Church of Christ
has the power of renewing the obligation to observe some of the old precepts
for just and serious reasons, despite their abrogation by the new Law. However,
precepts whose main function was to foreshadow the coming Messiah should not be
restored, for example, circumcision and the sacrifice of animals, as Vasquez
aptly remarks in 1, 2, Divi Thomae,
vol. 2, disp. 182, chap. 9, sect. ex quibus
omnibus. Precepts regarding external discipline and cleanliness of body,
the kind which contain the precepts on clean and unclean foods, may be
restored. The Western as well as the Eastern Church assumed this practice; this
is documented from the earliest centuries.
64. The Gentiles invented the calumny about the
early Christians eating the flesh of infants and drinking human blood. Such
calumny was occasioned by the prevailing practice of religious secrecy. The
faithful kept secret the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharistic meal
which they ate, but the Gentiles got some vague rumor of this Mystery and used
this as a basis for inventing and spreading this falsehood against the
Christians. This is shown by Schelestratus in his Dissertat. de Disciplina Arcani, artic. unic., chap. 4, sect. 17.
Equally renowned is the answer the ancient
Apologists gave to the Gentiles on behalf of the Christians without disclosing
the secret. They asserted that it was quite impossible that the disciples of Christ should eat human flesh and drink human
blood since, as was well known, they even abstained from the blood of animals
and from the flesh of strangled animals. Tertullian uses this proof in his Apologetici, chap. 9. This answer, however, proves
clearly that in the first centuries Christians distinguished between foods for
some reason and abstained from blood and the meat of strangled animals. This is
wisely noted by both Nicholas le Nourry, vol. 2, Apparatus
in Biblioth. Patr., diss. 4 on
Tertullian, chap. 12, art. 2, and by Pamelius, in
dictum cap. 9 Tertulliani, no. 138.
Those Christians did not think that the Mosaic
Law was still binding in this matter. They knew that the apostolic prohibition
regarding abstinence from blood and the meat of strangled animals had been
removed. They did not consider these foods prohibited in any way, yet they
abstained from them on the grounds that it was fitting to observe the custom
handed down by the fathers. Natalis Alexander writes
that "the custom of abstaining from blood and the meat of strangled
animals was so religiously observed in those churches because they had received
this custom from their fathers, not because they considered that these foods
were absolutely prohibited" (Hist. Ecdesiast.
Saecul. 1, diss. 10).
65. In his Comment. on
the words "from strangled animals and blood" (Acts 15), Calmet states that some Latin churches distinguished
between clean and unclean foods and abstained from blood and strangled meat as
late as the tenth and eleventh century. He does not at this point offer any
proof for his statement but its truth is quite evident to anyone who has the
slightest acquaintance with Christian writing. For Canisius
published an old Roman penitential from the end of the eighth or the start of
the ninth century; under the heading "On strangled meat," it
prescribes a penance for eating the meat of a strangled animal, and under the
heading "On mangled flesh," it prescribes penances and fasts for
eating fish which died in the pool or for drinking water from a well in which a
mouse or a hen died before thoroughly cleansing the well.
Humbertus, Cardinal of Silva Candida, as Legate of Pope
St. Leo IX at
66. There is no trace of this abstinence left
in the Latin churches, if we may believe Cornelius a Lapide
(in Commentar. in Actus Apost., chap. 15, "and from blood"). But it
is still strong in the Greek church which considers it praiseworthy to maintain
the apostolic precept on abstinence from blood and strangled meat. So say Calmet and a Lapide. Christianus Lupus says further that "the Greeks too
have for a long time afterwards observed unchanged this apostolic law"
(Notes on Canon 67 of the Trullan Synod). This Trullan Canon 67 says, "The divine scripture has
commanded us to abstain from blood, strangled meat, and fornication. We
fittingly punish those who for the pleasure of the belly skillfully season,
serve, and eat the blood of an animal. So if anyone henceforth eats the blood
of an animal in any way, he should be deposed if a cleric and separated if a
layman."
The Armenians alone, to Our knowledge, have
publicly abandoned this custom of the Greeks upon entering into union with the
Roman Church. For the schismatic Vartanes had
persuaded them to abstain from certain foods which the Mosaic Law called
unclean with the sole exception of pork; this he claimed had been allowed by
St. Gregory the Illuminator, their first patriarch. He also instructed them to
destroy vessels of oil and wine if a fly or suchlike drowned therein. Nevertheless
the conferences which effected the union of the Armenians with the Roman Church
decreed that "the Armenian fathers at both the synods of Sis and Adana in
uniting their church with the Church of Rome have approved the Dogmatic Letter
of Gregory, Patriarch of Armenia, to King Haytones,
which rejects the Jewish distinction of foods by the words, "We command
that all impure foods be considered purified, as St. Paul says, especially in
the case of the poor. The lord Nierses, that is, Ghelajensis, also a Doctor and Patriarch of Armenia, taught
that such foods should be blessed with prayers" (Galanus,
vol. 2 De conciliatione Ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana).
67. The third and final point suggested by the
text of the fourth admonition is that Greek priests are not forbidden to use
any of the prayers or blessings which are in their Euchologion
by reason of references to matters which were subject to the ceremonial
precepts of the Old Law. They should, however, do everything with the intention
not of obeying the precepts of the old Law, which has now been abrogated, but
of respecting the new Law of the Church or canonical custom made strong by long
and unbroken observance.
In dealing with the Greek custom of abstaining
from blood and strangled flesh, Lorinus notes that
"if the Greeks today abstain from blood on the grounds that they are bound
by this law, they are superstitious. This law now binds nobody and its
observance savors of the ceremonies of the old Law. But they should not be
blamed if they reject this food from a natural revulsion or other good
reason" (in cit. Actuum Apos.
15.20). Goarius, in writing in variantibus
lectionibus in the Greek Euchologion,
considers the prayer "for those who have eaten forbidden and unclean
things." He notes that "the Orientals avoid partaking of unclean
foods through zeal for the Church, rather than for the Mosaic Law, etc.
Consequently, despite the babbling calumny of Catumsyritus,
they are far from observing Jewish ritual since they are observing the
traditions of the Church." Catumsyritus would
have some basis for his daring statement if the Greeks acted as they do not for
these reasons, but from wrongly thinking that they are bound by the Apostolic
precept on abstinence from blood and strangled meat. William Beveregius unfortunately attempts to defend this opinion in
his Codex Canonum Ecclesiae primitivae,
vol. 2, chap. 7, no. 5.
Certain schismatics
have tried to calumniate the Latin church by saying that it judaizes
by consecrating unleavened bread, observing the Sabbath, and retaining the
anointing of kings among the sacred rites. But Leo Allatius
counters their rash claim in his splendid work de perpetua
consensione Ecclesiae Occidentalis
et Orientalis, bk. 3, chap. 4. He refutes them
particularly by arguing as follows: "Since Jews observe Sabbaths, a man
who observes Sabbaths acts in Jewish fashion: therefore the man who does not
eat the flesh of strangled animals acts in Jewish fashion since the Jews are
forbidden by the Law to eat such food: but the Greeks do not eat such food:
therefore, the Greek judaize" (loc. cit.
n. 4). Then to Our purpose he concludes (n. 9) that it cannot be absolutely
asserted that that man judaizes who does something in
the Church which corresponds to the ceremonies of the old Law. "If a man
should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of
worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the
basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the
instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which
resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize."
68. Since We have added an appendix to Our
treatment of each of the first three admonitions, before ending Our encyclical
We now want to add to this fourth admonition an appendix relevant both to the
subject of the admonition and to the publication of the revised Euchologion.
69. In the Book of Leviticus, chap. 12, it is
decreed that a woman who has borne a boy is unclean for seven days and remains
for a further thirty- three days in "the blood of her purification."
If she has been delivered of a girl, she is unclean for two weeks and remains
for sixty-six days "in the blood of her purification." She may not
enter the sanctuary before this time has elapsed. When she first enters the
temple, she is to bring a prescribed offering.
70. It cannot be denied that this prohibition
continued for some time in the Church. In the Penitential Canons of Theodorus, quoted by Ivo in his
decree and mentioned by Cardinal Baronius under 266
A.D., it is said that "a woman who enters the church before her blood is
clean after birth must do penance for thirty-three days if she brought forth a
boy and for fifty- six days if she bore a girl. If any woman rashly enters the
church before the prescribed time, she must do penance on bread and water for
as many days as she should have stayed away from the church." But it also
cannot be denied that this prohibition was removed in the Latin Church in the
course of time. "If at the same hour as she has brought forth, a woman
enters the church to give thanks, she does not commit any sin," said Pope
Gregory, and his words are quoted in the Decree of Gratian, can. 2, dist. 5. In his decretal Volens, De purificatione post
partum, Innocent III cites the text, "The law was given through Moses:
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." He adds that a woman who
wishes not to enter the church for a time after childbirth is not forbidden to
do so, but that a woman who comes to church does not sin. "So they commit
no sin and are not to be forbidden to enter the churches. To forbid them would
obviously imply that their punishment was a sin. Still if they want to stay away
for some time out of a feeling of reverence, We do not believe that their
devotion should be condemned."
The Blessed Virgin Mary willingly subjected
herself to the law of Leviticus, although this law did not apply to her, when
she presented herself and her divine Son in the
71. In the Greek Church, however, the law
regarding childbirth is observed religiously as if a commandment,
and a woman who has given birth is not allowed to come to the church before the
appointed time. Indeed in earlier centuries the practice of the Greeks was so
strict that women during menstruation were prevented from sharing the
Eucharist, even when critically ill. For this practice they were severely
criticized by Cardinal Humbertus of Silva Candida (Baronius, 1054 A.D.). This strictness was later modified to
the extent that women during menstruation who were in danger of death were
allowed to receive the Eucharist. This is seen both from the Canonical Letter
of Dionysius of Alexandria and from Novella 13 of Emperor Leo the Wise. The
remark of Cardinal Baronius (266 A.D., no. 11) should
be recalled here. He notes that Dionysius in this letter merely expressed his
own opinion and submitted it to the judgment of Basilides
and others. "I have written this not as a teacher, but to make my opinion
public with all appropriate simplicity. After repeated examination, write and
tell me the conclusion you have come to and whether this is the best view of
the matter." On the other hand the reasoning of St. Gregory the Great is
clearly true: "The excess of nature cannot be counted as a sin, and it is
not just to prevent a woman from entering the church because of what she
endures against her will" (cited by Gratian, can. 4, dist. 5).
As regards partaking of the Eucharist, the holy
Doctor openly declares that he does not condemn a woman for communicating even
at this time, although he does not disapprove if she abstains from doing so
from reverence. "She should be praised if she does not presume to receive
the sacrament from a feeling of great reverence, but if she does receive she is
not to be condemned. For it is characteristic of good people to see sins in
some measure in actions of their own which involve no sin."
Therefore Theophilus Raynaudus criticizes the practice of the Greeks in this
matter (Operum, vol. 16, <Heterodita
Spiritualia>, p. 33, no. 28, Lyons). And even Goarius, who is otherwise so constant a promoter and
defender of Greek rites, frankly admits that the law which forbids communion to
women during menstruation is too severe and contrary to all order. "Still
women who are defiled should be treated more mildly, despite all the arguments
and subterfuges of the Greeks, etc. The weakness is one of nature which
relieves itself automatically" (in notis ad Euchologium, p. 270). He then invokes the authority of
St. Gregory by quoting the passage from his letter which is given above.
72. Whatever be the case with women during
menstruation entering the church and being allowed to receive the Lord's body,
We turn back now to women after childbirth. As has been said, in the Latin
Church observance of a period following birth is simply advised but not
prescribed, while the Greek Church obliges women not to enter the church for a
specified number of days. As Goarius says (p. 269):
"The Greeks demand this behavior as a duty, the Latins
only as a demonstration of reverence." But the Euchologion
contains prayers to be said by the priest on this occasion as part of the whole
ritual of the ceremony surrounding childbirth.
73. Accordingly this matter was carefully
examined and discussed in the Congregations which met for the revision of the Euchologion both under Urban VIII and during Our
pontificate. No one proposed the entire elimination from the Euchologion of the rites surrounding childbirth, but the
suggestion was made that the prescribed period of forty days should be changed,
and that different prayers should be substituted for the prayer in the Euchology which seemed to refer excessively to the legal
uncleanness which caused the Jews to prevent their wives from doing any
business for forty days after birth and from entering the temple. It seemed
especially unfitting to beseech God to "cleanse etc. the defilement of her
body from all the defilement of sin and wash away the stains of the soul in the
course of forty days."
74. But others remarked wisely that some,
surely, of the ceremonial rites of the old Law could be observed under the new
Law if only they were not done as obligations of the old Law, which was
abrogated, but as a custom, or lawful tradition, or as a new precept issued by
one enjoying the recognized and competent authority to make laws and to enforce
them, as Vasquez observes (vol. 3, in the 3rd part of the Summa, disp. 210,
quest. 80, art. 7). It was decided that there was no real ground for surprise
that the observance of a period after childbirth should be simply a counsel for
Latin women, but obligatory law for the Greeks. Moreover, since the Greeks
perform the rite in a different way than the Jews of old in not making an
offering to the priest in the Jewish way, and since they sanctify the rite with
suitable prayers, beseeching God to forgive any sins the woman has committed,
and since the patronage of the Virgin Mother of God is invoked for this very purpose,
it was decided on January 8, 1747, by those whom We had placed in charge of the
revision of the Euchologion, to make no changes in
this section. We subsequently approved their decision.
For it is easy to arrive at a correct
understanding of the words quoted from the Greek prayer, by saying that God is
thereby asked both to cleanse the woman's soul from every sin and to free her
body from all uncleanness, natural not legal, insofar as it indicates a
spiritual uncleanness. For cleanliness of body also is part of the service and
reverence due to the churches and holy things. Therefore in the early centuries
the faithful used to enter the churches only after carefully washing
themselves, as St. John Chrysostom says, and in private they always washed their
hands before touching the volume of the Gospels.
75. We thought We should explain these matters
to you in this encyclical letter, venerable brothers and beloved sons, to
inform you of the reasons why the Apostolic See has for a long time felt that
the laborious task of revising your Euchologion
should be undertaken, and to make known to you the care, zeal and cautious
reasoning with which the work was undertaken and brought to completion. No
changes were made in the oldest and most authoritative euchologies;
only what seemed to have been included in some more recent editions by the
credulity or wickedness of some men was eliminated or emended. Everything was
kept which could possibly be kept, and some benevolent interpretation was
employed to save your Rite from any appearance of attack.
We do not doubt that all of this speaks of Our
real love for you and of the love of the Apostolic See. We are also certain
that you will understand how great Our zeal and concern is that you persevere
firmly in holy union and that the wanderers be recalled one day by God's grace
to the same union and the way of salvation. It is up to you to use this revised
edition of the Euchologion and to see to it carefully
that any new edition of it conforms in every point to this edition, which has
been published in 1754 at the press of the Congregation for the Propagation of
the Faith. This will ensure that all the errors and nonsense which formerly
found their way into and spoiled other editions will be kept out.
Finally We ask you to assist Us by your prayers
in Our difficult task of governing the universal Church and We lovingly impart
to you Our Apostolic blessing.
Given at