Part 4

III. The passage which seems to us most decisive, is that which points to the _royal extraction_ and _name_ of this holy bishop: “_Regia progenies, alto de sanguine Machar_”. Observe how in the notice from _Harold_ Bishop M’Carthy was called also “Mechar”. Clearly both were one and the same name. Thus [Gaelic: Mac Careaw], Anglicised M’Carthy, is pronounced Maccaura, with the last syllable short, as in Ard-Magha (Armagh), and numberless like words. Hence Wadding,(8) in speaking of the foundation of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, by Domnal M’Carthy, Prince of Desmond, quotes to this effect a Bull of Paul II., in 1468, in which Domnall’s name is spelled “_Machar_”, a form identical with that in the contemporary fragment. In truth, there is no Irish family name like “Machar” at all but “Meagher”, which is invariably spelled with “O”, especially in the Latinized form; and the “O’Meaghers” had no claim to _royal_ blood.

IV. The Blessed Thaddeus was “regia progenies”. Now there was no _royal_ family name in Ireland like that in the inscription except the truly _royal_ name, made more royal still by the saintly Bishop of Cloyne. Without insisting with Keating that the ancestry of the M’Carthy family could be traced through twenty-eight monarchs who governed the island before the Christian era, we may assert with the Abbe MacGeoghan, in a note (tom. iii. p. 680), strangely omitted by his translator, “that if regard be had to primogeniture and seniority of descent, the M’Carthy family is the _first_ in Ireland”.

Long before the founders of the oldest royal families in Europe—before Rodolph acquired the empire of Germany, or a Bourbon ascended the throne of France—the saintly Cormac M’Carthy, the disciple, the friend, and patron of St. Malachy, ruled over Munster, and the title of _king_ was at least continued in name in his posterity down to the reign of Elizabeth. “Few pedigrees, if any”, says Sir B. Burke, “in the British empire can be traced to a more remote or exalted source than that of the Celtic house of M’Carthy.... They command a prominent, perhaps the _most prominent_ place in European genealogy”. Plain then is it that in no other house could the “regia progenies” be verified more fully than in the M’Carthy family.(9)

V. The date of death, the wished-for burial place, his native soil (Kerry), or his diocese (Cloyne)—the name and royal extraction, all point to the Bishop of Cloyne as the saint whose relics are still worshipped at Ivrea. If we add that “Chiar” is the usual Irish form of Kerry; that Domnall’s (the founder of Irrelagh) father’s name was THADDEUS, not improbably our Saint’s uncle, the evidence seems to be overwhelming.

VI. We have said there is no account in Irish writers of even the Bishop of Cloyne, except the few lines in Ware. The continental annalists of the religious orders do, however, speak of one celebrated Thaddeus, without mentioning his surname or country. Elsius (quoting _De Herera_ and _Crusen_, whose works are not within our reach) notices Thaddeus _de Hipporegio_ sive _Iporegia_, “as a man distinguished for learning, religious observance, preaching, holiness of life, and experience, a man of great zeal, and a sedulous promoter of the interests of his order”. He was prior, he adds, of several convents, seven times definitor, thirteen times visitator, four times president of synods, nine times vicar-general, and his government was ever distinguished for the greatest love of order and edifying example. See Els., _Encom._, August., p. 645.

After quoting these words in substance from the Augustinian chronicler, Dr. Renehan adds: “After the most diligent inquiry I could make at Ivrea, wherever I could hope for any little information, particularly at the episcopal palace (where I was received with marked respect, as a priest from the country that sent out the B. Thaddeus), and of the Bishop’s secretary, the vicar-general, and many others, whose kind attention I can never forget, I could find no vestige of any other Thaddeus, called after the city (_Eporedia_), but our own blessed Irish bishop; and I was assured, over and over again, that he was the only Thaddeus known in its annals, or who ever had any connection with the town, by birth, residence, death—or any way known to the present generation”. It is not then unreasonable to suppose that the Thaddeus so celebrated in the Augustinian Order was no other than our Bishop. True, Elsius gives 1502 for the date of the friar’s demise; but Elsius is never to be trusted in dates, and the printer may easily take MCCCCXCII. (the true date), for MCCCCCII. Indeed, 1492 is not so different from 1502 that an error may not have crept in.

Dr. Renehan’s theory, then, with regard to B. Thaddeus, fully detailed in the letter to the Bishop of Ivrea, was this:—

Thaddeus M’Carthy was born in Kerry, where the M’Carthy More branch of the family resided, and where, in the monastery of Irialac (now Muckross), or in Ennisfallen (see _Archdall_), the princes of the house were always buried. The young Thaddeus went abroad at an early age, and embraced the monastic life. His virtues and piety soon attracted the notice of his religious brethren, as manifest from their chronicles. They became in time known to the ruling Pontiff, Innocent VIII., who raised him to the episcopal dignity. The B. Thaddeus repaired to Rome in the first place, to receive consecration and jurisdiction from the successor of St. Peter, imitating in this the example of our great patron saint. He stopped at Ivrea, probably on his way home, fell sick there, and died, God witnessing to His servant by signs and wonders. The silence of our annalists is thus accounted for to a great extent by the long residence of B. Thaddeus abroad. This theory is remarkably borne out by the independent notice in last _Record_. Having little to help us to arrive at any correct notion of the saintly bishop’s life beyond the epitaph and the slender tradition at Ivrea, we entirely subscribe to this view. Other sources of information may be opened, now that we have ventured to bring, for the first time, the name of B. Thaddeus before the Irish Catholic people; and for this service, little as it is, and entirely unworthy of our saintly bishop, we still expect his blessing in full measure.

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

We have received from various quarters several questions connected with the ceremony of marriage. We propose in this number of the _Record_ to answer some of them.

We shall treat in the first place of the Mass. The questions forwarded to us may be reduced to the two following:

1. When and on what days can the Missa pro sponso et sponsa be said, and on what days is it forbidden by the Rubrics?

2. In either Mass are any commemorations to be made, and when and how are they to be made?

In reply to these questions, we beg to bring under the notice of our readers the following decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

4266. In celebratione Nuptiarum quae fit extra diem Dominicum vel alium diem festum de praecepto seu in quo occurrat duplex primae vel secundae classis etiamsi fiat officium et Missa de Festo duplici per annum sive majori sive minori dicendam esse Missam pro sponso et sponsa in fine Missalis post alias Missas votivas specialiter assignatam: in diebus vero Dominicis aliisque diebus festis de praecepto ac duplicibus primae et secundae classis dicendam esse Missam de Festo cum commemoratione Missae pro sponso et sponsa. Atque ita decrevit et servari mandavit. Die 20 Decembris 1783. Factaque deinde per me Secretarium de praedictis Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. VI. relatione Sanctitas sua praefatum Sac. Cong. generale Decretum confirmavit, et ubique exequutioni dandum esse praecepit. Die 7 Januarii 1784

4394. Verumtamen cum interea nonnulla excitata fuerint dubia circa rubricam in haccelebranda Missa servandam, et Parochorum sensus sit varius quippe quia aliqui eidem Missae Hymnum Angelicum adjiciendum censent cum vers. Ite, Missa est in fine, alii vero etiam Symbolum Nicenum legendum putant, ea freti ratione quod haec Missa ceu solemnis et pro re gravi haberi debeat: ideo ad amputandas controversias et dubitationes utque ab omnibus unus idemque conveniens ritus servetur: sacra Rituum Congregatio, me subscripto secretario referente, re mature discussa, declaravit atque decrevit quod firma remanente dispositione praefati Decreti quoad designationem dierum in quibus Missa votiva pro sponso et sponsa celebrari potest, eamdem esse votivam privatam, proindeque semper legendam sine Hymno Angelico et symbolo Nicaeno cum tribus orationibus, prima videlicet ejusdem Missae votivae propria ut habetur in fine Missalis secunda et tertia diei currentis ut in Rubric. Tit. vii. num. 3, de Commemorationibus, Benedicamus Domino in fine, et ultimo Evangelio S. Johannis. Et ita decrevit die 28 Februarii 1818.

4437. Cum per Decretum Generale S. hujus Congregationis die 20 Decembris 1783 dies designentur, quibus Missa pro sponso et sponsa etiam diebus excludentibus duplicia per annum, ideoque etiam infra octavam Epiphaniae, in vigilia Pentecostes, et infra octavam privilegiatam sanctissimi Corporis Christi: alii vero putant his etiam diebus eamdem Missam vetitam; idcirco idem Parochus petiit declarari.

5. An hujusmodi Missa dici possit diebus duplicia excludentibus ut supra notatis?

6. An Commemoratio Missae pro sponso et sponsa dicenda prout ex dicto decreto in Missis de duplici primae vel secundae classis dici debeat sub unica conclusione cum oratione Festi vel sub altera conclusione?

7. An talis Commemoratio pariter dici debeat vel sub altera conclusione prout solet de aliis commemorationibus occurrentibus in diebus Dominicis et Festis de praecepto?

8. Quo loco, quando aliae occurrunt commemorationes ut in proximo quaesito commemoratio Missae pro sponso et sponsa dicenda sit sub secunda conclusione, an scilicet ultimo loco?

Et S. Rituum Congregatio exquisita sententia alterius ex Apostolicarum Caeremoniarum Magistris scripto exarata, typisque evulgata ad relationem Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi D. Card. Cavalchini Ponentis, respondendum censuit ut infra, videlicet.

Ad 5. Negative quoad octavam Epiphaniae, vigiliam Pentecostes, et octavam privilegiatam Sanctissimi Corporis Christi, quatenus privilegium concessum sit ad instar octavae Epiphaniae.

Ad. 6. Negative ad primam partem, affirmative ad secundam.

Ad. 7. Ut in antecedenti.

Ad. 8. Faciendam primo loco post alias de praecepto.

Atque ita respondit die 20 Aprilis 1822.

From these decrees the following conclusions may clearly be established:

1. On all Sundays and holidays of obligation, and feasts of first and second class, the Mass of the day is to be said with the commemoration of the Mass pro sponso et sponsa. This appears clear from the decree 4266 quoted above.

2. This commemoration is to be made sub altera conclusione, and not sub unica conclusione cum oratione Festi.

3. If there are other commemorations to be made in the Mass of the day, they are to be said before the commemoration of the Mass pro sponso et sponsa. This appears from the answer given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites to the question 8 in the Decree No. 4437, and Gardellini, in a note on this same question, says: “Imo si occurrant plures commemorationes ut accidit potissimum dum celebranda est Missa de Dominica, illa Nuptiarum primum dumtaxat locum obtinere poterit post alias a rubrica praeceptas et sic reliquas praestare, siquae sint a superiore imperatae”.

4. The decree 4394 makes it clear that on all the ordinary doubles throughout the year, the Missa pro sponso et sponsa may be celebrated; and it declares, moreover, that it is a votive private Mass, and, as such, to be said sine Gloria et Credo, with the second and third prayers of the day occurring, and to conclude with the Benedicamus Domino and the Gospel of St. John. This decree, clear as it may appear, gave rise to another question about privileged octaves which exclude doubles, which was afterwards proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and to which an answer was given on the 20th April, 1822, in the Decree 4437, already quoted, question 5.

Gardellini, in a valuable note, explains the matter fully, and we quote his words on the subject:—

“Hisce decretis compositae quaestiones omnes videbantur: secus tamen accidit, nam nova excitata sunt dubia. Quippe nonnulli sunt, qui opinantur Missam hanc dici posse etiam diebus qui excludunt duplicia per annum, praesertim vero infra octavam Epiphaniae, in vigilia Pentecostes et infra octavam privilegiatam sanctissimi Corporis Christi. In hac autem opinione versantur quia in primo illo Decreto dies isti expressim et nominatim non excipiuntur. Ast hi errant quam maxime. Non enim declaratione indigebat id, quod sub generali prohibitione, utpote a Rubricis jam vetitum continebatur. Jubet Decretum, ne Missa nuptiarum celebretur in duplicibus primae vel secundae classis sed vult ut in hujusmodi occursu solam obtineant commemorationem: ergo includit in regula etiam dies, in quibus per easdem Rubricas fieri nequit Festum duplex secundae classis vel occurrens vel translatum si in octava Epiphaniae duplicia isthaec non admittuntur, potiori jure nec Missa votiva privata non obstante Indultu admitti poterit, utpote quae in occursu hujusmodi duplicium celebranda non est”.

We must refer our readers to this very instructive note of Gardellini, which we regret we cannot insert here in full, owing to its great length. Indeed it is not necessary to do so, inasmuch as the answer given to the question 5 in the Decree 4437, already quoted, puts an end to further discussion, and settles the question definitively.

There are other questions connected with the ceremony of marriage, but we must reserve them for another occasion.

CORRESPONDENCE.

I. The See Of Down And Connor.

_To the Editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record_.

GENTLEMEN,

In the March number of your valuable periodical there was a most interesting paper on the See of Down and Connor. I apprehend, however, it contained a few slight mistakes, which I would have pointed out, but hoped that some person more intimately conversant with the subject would have done so in your April number. Such not having been the case, I shall endeavour to do so. However, before entering on these matters, I beg to say, in illustration of your learned contributor’s notes, that the “_Ecclesia de Rathlunga_”, of which Bishop Liddell had been rector, is now called Raloo, and lies between Larne and Carrickfergus, in the county of Antrim (see Reeves, p. 52); that _Lesmoghan_, of which Bishop Killen had been pastor, still bears the same name, forming a sub-denomination of the parish of Ballykinler, county Down (Ib., p. 28); that _Arwhyn_, of which John of _Baliconingham_ (now Coniamstown, near Downpatrick) was rector, is now the mensal parish of Ardquin, in the barony of Ardes, county Down (Ib., p. 20); and that _Camelyn_, of which Bishop Dongan was pastor, is now called Crumlin, being united to the parish of Glenavy, near Lough Neagh, county Antrim (_Ib._, p. 4). Returning from this digression, it is quite plain from the Bull dated June, 1461, given by De Burgo (_Hib. Dom._, p. 474), and cited by your contributor, p. 267, appointing Richard Wolsey to the See of Down, that Wolsey was not the immediate successor of Bishop John, who died in 1450. It expressly states, as mentioned in the article, that the See was _vacant_ by the death of THOMAS, last bishop of the canonically united dioceses of Down and Connor, repeating the same name in the body of the Bull. How this is to be reconciled with the statement that Wolsey was John’s successor, I cannot say; but it follows, on the principle laid down by your contributor in ignoring John Logan, placed by Ware between William, bishop from 1365 to 1368, and Richard Calf II., 1369, that we must have a Bishop Thomas between John and Richard Wolsey. Dr. Reeves (_Eccl. Ant. Down_, etc., p. 257), on the authority of this very Bull, has accordingly done so, marking him as succeeding in 1450, and the see vacant in 1451. He conjectures him to have been _Thomas Pollard_, who in 1450 was appointed custose of the temporalities. Dr. Cotton (vol. iii. p. 201) adopts this view without hesitation, and it would appear by a complaint of the beforementioned Bishop John, shortly after the union of Down and Connor in 1441, that even then Pollard claimed to have an apostolical provision for the See of Down (Primate Mey’s _Registry_, cited by Reeves, p. 37; see also Harris’s _Ware_, p. 203, where it is likewise mentioned that Pollard contested the See of Down with John of Connor, both carrying themselves as bishops thereof, Harris adding that it was thought Pollard was supported by the primate, and that it was only in 1449 Pollard lost his cause, just two years before Wolsey’s appointment). It may be asked, had he a reversionary provision before the union was canonically effected? If not, is _Thomas_ a misprint for _John_ in the Bull? as we are aware that there are many typographical errors in the _Hib. Dom._—for instance, as to _John_ O’Molony, Bishop of Killaloe, who died circ. 1650, is in several places called _Thomas_.