Part 6

Urbis et Orbis. Decretum. Cum Sacrae huic Congregationi Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae in una Melden. inter alia exhibitum fuisset dubium enodandum “An ad lucrandam Indulgentiam vel fructum orationis _Sacrosanctae et individuae_ etc. necessario flexis genibus haec oratio sit dicenda, vel an saltem in casu legitimi impedimenti ambulando, sedendo recitari valeat?” Eminentissimi Patres in generalibus Comitiis die 5 Martii superioris anni apud Vaticanas Aedes habitis respondendum esse duxerunt. “Affirmative ad primam partem, negative ad secundam”. Facta itaque Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. relatione per me infrascriptum S. Congregationis Secretarium die 12 ejusdem mensis, Sanctitas Sua votum Eminentissimorum Patrum approbavit. In audientia vero Sanctissimi die 12 Iulii ejusdem anni ab Eminentissimo Cardinali praefatae S. Congregationis Praefecto habita, eadem Sanctitas Sua ex speciali gratia clementer indulsit, ut Oratio _Sacrosanctae_ etc. pro lucranda Indulgentia a Sa. Mem. Leone PP. X. adnexa, seu fructu dictae orationis, etiam non flexis genibus recitari possit ab iis, qui legitime impediti fuerint infirmitatis tantum causa. Praesenti valituro absque ulla Brevis expeditione, non obstantibus in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque.

Datum Romae ex Secretaria ejusdem S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum die 7 januarii 1856.—Loco ϯ Signi.—F. Cardinalis ASQUINIUS, Praef.—A. Colombo Secretarius.

IV. Plenary Indulgences And The Infirm.

“_Decretum Urbis et Orbis. Ex Audientia Sanctissimi die 18 Septembris, 1862._—Est hoc in more positum quod ab animarum Pastoribus Sanctissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum in aliquibus tantum infra annum praecipuis festivitatibus ad fideles habitualiter infirmos, chronicos, ob physicum permanens aliquod impedimentum e domo egredi impotentes solemniter deferatur, proindeque hujusmodi fideles tot Plenariis Indulgentiis privantur, quas consequerentur si conditionibus injunctis adimpletis ad Sacram Eucharisticam Mensam frequentius possent accedere. Itaque quamplures animarum Curatores, aliique permulti Ecclesiastici Viri humillimas preces porrexerunt Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. ut de Apostolica benignitate super hoc providere dignaretur, factaque per me infrascriptum Secretariae S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum Substitutum Eidem Sanctissimo de his omnibus fideli relatione in Audientia habita die 18 Septembris 1862, Sanctitas Sua spirituali gregis sibi crediti utilitati prospiciens clementer indulsit, ut praefati Christi fideles, exceptis tamen illis qui in Communitate morantur, acquirere possent omnes et singulas Indulgentias plenarias jam concessas vel in posterum concedendas, quasque alias acquirere possent in locis in quibus vivunt, si in eo physico statu non essent, pro quarum acquisitione praescripta sit Sacra Communio et visitatio alicujus Ecclesiae vel publici Oratorii in locis iisdem, dummodo vere poenitentes, confessi, ac caeteris omnibus absolutis conditionibus, si quae injunctae fuerint, loco S. Communionis et Visitationis alia pia opera a respectivo Confessario injungenda fideliter adimpleant. Praesenti in perpetuum valituro absque ulla Brevis expeditione. Non obstantibus in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque.

“Datum Romae ex Secretaria S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum et SS. Reliquiarum, Loco ϯ Signi _F. Card. Asquinius_ _Praefectus. A. Archip. Prinzivalli Substitutus._”

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I.

_Appendix ad Rituale Romanum_ sive Collectio Benedictionum et Instructionum a Rituali Romano exsulantium, Sanctae Sedis auctoritate approbatarum seu permissarum, in usum et commoditatum Missionariorum Apostolicorum digesta. Romæ, Typis S. Con. de Propagande Fide, 1864.

This book has been compiled by authority, to serve as an appendix to the Roman Ritual, and is intended for the convenience of priests on the mission. In Ireland especially, where the Catholic instincts of the people have ever maintained pious confraternities in the honour which is their due, the clergy must have felt the want of a manual containing the _formulæ_ to be used in enrolling the faithful in the various religious societies approved by the Holy See. These forms are not to be found in the Roman Ritual, nor in the books easily accessible to the great body of priests. Besides, since every creature of God may be blessed by prayer, the Catholic Church, whilst she refuses to be reconciled with whatever is defective in modern progress, hastens, on the other hand, to sanctify by her blessing whatever this progress contains of good. Hence, new forms of prayer are rendered necessary from time to time, such as the form for blessing railways, and the Benedictio ad. OMNIA, to be used in blessing all objects for which a special benediction is not contained in the Roman Ritual. These forms are to be found in this appendix. The instructions which the Holy See issues from time to time on various subjects for the guidance of missionary priests, also find their place in this collection. Among them is the Instructio, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, for those who have permission to say two Masses on the same day in different churches, and which is inserted in the Ordo for use of the Irish clergy. To this is added, in the book under notice, the ritus servandus a _Sacerdote cum utramque Missam in eadem Ecclesia offere debet_. It runs as follows:—

“Hoc itaque in casu Sacerdos post haustum in prima Missa diligenter Sanguinem Domini, omissa consueta purificatione, patena calicem et palla patenam tegens ac super corporale relinquens dicet junctis manibus: _Quod ore sumpsimus Domine_, etc. Deinde digitos, quibus SS. Sacramentum tetigit, in aliquo vase mundo ad hoc in Altare praeparato abluet, interim dicens _Corpus tuum Domine_, etc., abstersisque purificatorio digitis calicem velo coöperiet, velatumque ponet super corporale extensum. Absoluta Missa si nulle in Ecclesia sit sacristia calicem eodem modo super Altare relinquet; secus vero in Sacristiam deferet, ibique super Corporale vel pallam in aliquo loco decenti et clauso collocabit usque ad secundam Missam, in qua, cum eodem calice uti debeat, ilium rursus secum deferet ad Altare, ac super corporale extensum reponet. Cum autem in secunda Missa Sacerdos ad Offertorium devenerit, ablato velo de Calice hunc parumper versus cornu Epistolae collocabit sed non extra corporale, factaque hostiae oblatione cavebit ne purificatorio extergat calicem, sed eum intra corporale relinquens leviter elevabit, vinumque et aquam eidem caute imponet, ne guttae aliquae ad labia ipsius Calicis resiliant, quem deinde nullatenus ab intus abstersum more solito offeret.”

The contents may be reduced to three heads. The first regards the sacraments, and embraces a short form for blessing the baptismal font; the rite of confirmation when administered by a simple priest by delegation from the Apostolic See; instruction for priests who duplicate; manner of carrying the Eucharist in secret to the sick among unbelievers; decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites concerning the oil for the lamp of the Blessed Sacrament. The second contains various forms of blessing, twenty-two in number, and including those for erecting the Via Crucis, and for enrolling in the scapulars of the different orders. The third part contains the ceremonies appointed by Benedict XIII. to be performed in the smaller parish churches on the great festivals of the Christian year.

II.

_Popular Objections against the Encyclical._ By. Mgr. de Segur. Authorized Translation. Dublin: John F. Fowler, 3 Crow Street.

We are delighted to welcome this little work, both for the sake of its own proper merits, and because it is the first instalment of the authorized translation of the admirable works of Mgr. de Segur. The Encyclical and Syllabus still continue to be the great event of the day. Indeed, as yet, we see only the beginnings of the influence it is surely destined to exercise on men’s minds; and for the due development of that influence, works like this of the French prelate are very necessary. The docile Catholic, for whom St. Peter lives and speaks in Pius IX., will find set forth herein the majesty and beauty of the doctrine he had before received in simple faith. The Catholic whose mind has been coloured for good and evil by modern ideas, and who has felt alarm at the apparent contradiction between the teaching of the Pope and certain social doctrines he has long held to be as sacred as first principles, will find in these pages wherewith to calm his apprehensions and steady his judgment He will see that what the Church condemns is already condemned by reason and history; and that, far from placing under the ban any of the elements of true progress, the Holy See censures the very errors which make all true progress impossible. The priest who has charge of the wise and the unwise together, will be glad to have, in these few pages, what may enable him to provide for the wants of both. We quote a few passages:—

The Pope Condemns Liberty Of Conscience.

You mean to say “the liberty of having no conscience”, or, what is much the same thing, “the liberty of corrupting or poisoning one’s conscience!” You are right; the Pope is the mortal enemy of a liberty so shocking. What good father would leave his son the liberty of poisoning himself?

It was Protestantism which invented, and it is the Revolution which has perfected, what unbelievers call liberty of conscience. It has become an essential part of _progress_, of that anti-Catholic _progress_ of which we were speaking just now, and which has insinuated itself into all modern constitutions....

The liberty of following one’s conscience, even when it is misguided, is not the liberty of conscience condemned by the Encyclical Letter. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and all men, of whatever denomination or sect they may be, are obliged to follow the dictates of their conscience; as long as they are misled _fairly_, it is but a misfortune; what the Church demands is that all men may escape this misfortune, and have full liberty of embracing truth, when once they have discovered it. The Pope condemns liberty of _conscience_, and not liberty of _consciences_. The one is very different from the other.

In Condemning Liberty Of Worship, The Pope Wishes To Oblige Governments To Persecute Unbelievers, Protestants, Jews.

The Pope desires nothing of all that, and those who say so, do not believe a word of what they advance. Pius IX. says simply to _Catholic_ governments (and it is to them that he addresses himself): “There is but one true religion, because there is but one God, one Christ, one faith, one baptism, and this only true religion is that of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Rome. If, in consequence of unfortunate circumstances, a Catholic government is obliged to put the Church on the same footing with false religions, such as Protestants, Jews, Mahometans, etc., it should bitterly regret such an unhappy state of things, and never consider it as permanent or lasting. Such conduct would be putting truth on a line with error, and despising faith.

“It is the duty of a really Catholic government to facilitate, _as much as possible_, to bishops and priests, the free exercise of their holy ministry, in order that they may, by the zeal and persuasion of their charity, work more efficaciously for the conversion of heretics and other dissenters. It must hinder, _as much as circumstances and the laws of prudence will permit_, the extension of heresy; finally, it must endeavour, for its own interest, as well as for that of the Church, to procure the inestimable advantages of religious unity and peace to its subjects”.

These are the matters that Pius IX. speaks of. He simply engages Catholic sovereigns to do for their subjects what every good father would do for his children and his servants; he does all in his power to render the knowledge and practice of religion easy for them; he removes as much as he can all that is capable of weakening their faith or of corrupting their morals; he tolerates the evil that he cannot prevent, but he never lets an opportunity pass without blaming this evil, and repressing that which he cannot extirpate entirely.

The Church employs gentleness and mildness in order to gain souls to God. Who would have ever thought of using violent measures to impose faith on men? Although the Catholic Church pities those who are misguided, and does all in her power to enlighten them, she respects their faith, when she knows them to be upright and honest. Intolerant and absolute in matter of doctrine, she is full of tender solicitude for her children.

III.

_St. Patrick’s Cathedral: How it was Restored._ By a Catholic Clergyman. Dublin: Duffy, 1865

Even in the days of St. Augustine, Catholic eyes had to behold scenes somewhat similar to the one in view of which this pamphlet has been written. Within churches once Catholic, Donatist bishops at that time held high festival, in the midst of solemn pomp, with mystic rite and sacred song. From episcopal chairs erected in opposition to those of the prelates in communion with the Roman Pontiff, “_that is to say_”, explains St. Cyprian, “_with the Catholic Church_”, intruded bishops counterfeited the preaching of the lawful pastors, and with many a text from Holy Writ, and with a plentiful use of holiest names, made a brave show of belonging to those whom the Holy Ghost has placed to rule the Church of God. But the make-believe was not successful. One glance at the religious system of these men and at the Catholic Church was enough to reveal the hollowness of their pretensions, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical air they so studiously cultivated. Hence St. Augustine thus writes about Emeritus, a Donatist bishop (for whom, perhaps, some worthy layman, not averse from proselytizing poor Catholics in the wild Numidian country about Cethaquenfusca, had restored one of the old cathedrals), “Outside the pale of the Church (Emeritus) may have everything except salvation. Honour he may have, a sacrament he may have, he may sing _alleluia_, he may answer _amen_, he may have the Gospel, he may both hold and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; but nowhere save in the Catholic Church shall he be able to find salvation”—(_Epist._ clii.). And yet, at least in the beginning, the Donatists were but schismatics; their heresy was of somewhat later growth. How much stronger, then, becomes St. Augustine’s argument when applied to the Established Church of our times, in which heresy and free-thinking have ravaged whatever schism had spared! The pamphlet under notice in reality does but reëcho the holy Doctor’s remarks. An outline of St. Patrick’s life and faith, drawn from unimpeachable authorities, sets before us most clearly that the ancient Catholic Church of Ireland differed far more from the Church now usurping St. Patrick’s Cathedral, than the ancient Catholic Church of Africa from the Donatist body. The personal history of our great apostle, his early training, his call to preach, his ecclesiastical studies, his mission from Rome, his doctrine about the Holy See, his essentially Catholic teaching, are all plainly and forcibly Set forth, and contrasted with the peculiarities of modern Protestantism. No candid mind can for a moment hesitate to conclude with the writer, that the restoration ceremony was “a ghastly spectacle of _unreality_. It was a joyous revel over a _lifeless_ form: the body was there, but not _the soul_. The beauty of early years, which is oftentimes observed to resume its place, in death, upon the face from which it had been long driven by weeks, or months, or, perhaps, years of pain, the beauty of graceful outline, and delicate feature, and placid, gentle expression—all that had come back; and the church seemed as if but yesterday finished. But the spirit of St. Patrick was not there; the creed which he taught was not there; the _true faith_, which is the soul, the animating spirit of religion, was far away”.

IV.

_Vie et Institut de Saint Alphonse Marie de Liguori, Evêque de Sainte Agathe des Goths, et Fondateur de la Congregation du Tres-Saint Redempteur._ Par son Eminence le Cardinal Clement Villecourt, 4 vols. Tournai: Casterman, 1864.

Of this excellent work we have only space to say at present that it is worthy of its eminent author, and not unworthy of the great saint whose life and virtues it sets forth. We hope to return to the subject at a future time.

FOOTNOTES

1 The reader must not be surprised at the name thus given to the See of Derry. Camden cites, from an ancient Roman Provinciale, the name _Rathlucensis_ given to this see (Publications of I. A. S., 1843, pag. 61), and O’Sullivan Beare more than once designates the town of Derry by the Latin name _Lucas_, and styles its bishop “Dirii vel Luci Episcopus”—(_Hist. Cath._, pag. 77, et passim).

2 The cubit was originally the length of the human arm from the elbow to the end of the middle finger. It is variously estimated at from 16 to 22 inches. Our readers may form an idea of the tabernacle and the court, sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes, by allowing one yard English for every two cubits. See Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, or his _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_.

3 Our readers must not be surprised if in this and in other instances we depart a little from the reading of the Vulgate version, and adhere to the literal translation of the Hebrew text. In controversy it is often desirable to accommodate ourselves to the views and even to the prejudices of our adversaries; and since the authority of the Hebrew text is admitted by all classes of Christians, we appeal to it as a common ground of argument. Besides, when the point in dispute depends on the meaning of a Hebrew phrase, it will be always useful to have the _exact words_ of the Hebrew text before our eyes.

4 This mode of expression is perfectly conformable to scriptural usage; for we read (_Numbers_, x. 3) that _all the assembly_ (עדה) were directed to assemble themselves _to Moses_: and again, (III. _Kings_, viii. 2) it is said that “all the men of Israel assembled themselves _unto King Solomon_”.

5 Nordheim’s _Hebrew Grammar_, § 148; see also Gesenius, § 53, “_Significations of Hiphil_. It is properly _causative of kal_.”

6 Accordingly, this is the first meaning given for the word by Gesenius in his Lexicon. In this sense, too, it is frequently employed in the Mosaic narrative. Here are two examples, taken almost at random, in which we find the same word in the same conjugation, mood, and tense: When Joseph, in prison, asked the chief butler of Pharaoh to intercede for him with his royal master, he added: “And thou shalt _bring me_ (והוצאתני—vehotzethani) out of this prison”—(_Gen._ xl. 14). Will Dr. Colenso say that Joseph intended the chief butler should _carry him_ out of prison _on his back_? Again, when the Jews murmured against Moses and Aaron in the desert, they cry out, “Ye have _brought us forth_ (הוצאתם—hotzethem) into this wilderness to kill the whole multitude with hunger”—(_Ex._ xvi. 3; also xiv. 11). They surely did not mean to say that Moses and Aaron had _carried_ the whole multitude out of Egypt _on their backs_.

7 “Clove”=Cloyne, Rymer’s _Foedera_. Tom. v. par. iv. p. 105; Lib. Mun. Tom. i. par. iv. p. 102.

8 “Maccarthy=Carthy=Macare=Machar”. Wadd. Annal. Min. ad _an._ 1340, n. 25, _ed._ Roman. Tom. viii. p. 241; _ibid._ Tom. xiii. p. 432, et pp. 558-9.

9 “Kings of the M’Carthy race”, Annals of Innisfallen, ad _an._ 1106, p. 106, _an._ 1108, 1110, 1176; Annals of Boyle, _an._ 1138, 1185; Annals of Ulster, _an._ 1022-3, 1124; Gir. Cambr., lib. i. cap. iii.; S. Bernard, in Vit. Malac., cap. iv. “Their burial place”, Archdall Monast. Hib., pp. 302, 303.