FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[C]I. E. Record, No. II., page 50-55.

[C]I. E. Record, No. II., page 50-55.

The early history of the See of Ardagh is involved in much obscurity and some little confusion. After Saint Mel, its first bishop, and Melchuo, his brother and successor, for several centuries there is little available information of the state of the diocese, the succession of its bishops, or the condition of its religious foundations. For the most part, up to the twelfth century, we find only the names of the bishops, of which the meagre list is very incomplete and defective; in some instances whole centuries are passed over, of which we have no published record at all.

In the absence of other ecclesiastical monuments, the history of this See, like many others, can be traced only in a fragmentary manner, as it is found mixed up with the history of the severalreligious houses scattered over it, or as it may be unravelled from the various legends and traditions connected with them. These Religious foundations were numerous in Ardagh, and some of them rank among the most ancient in the island; thus, in theTripartite Life of Saint Patrick, we find that the two daughters of the Saint's old master, Milcho, after the death of their father, took the veil in the convent of Augustin nuns, founded by Saint Patrick at Cluain Bronach, near Granard in Teffia (Clonbroncy, County Longford), which must, therefore, have been one of the most ancient foundations for Religious women in Ireland. Time, and the hand of the spoiler have dealt hardly with these old houses, and few traces can be found of them to-day. The same may be said even of those more modern ones, which, like the Dominican Convent of Saint Brigid, Longford, or the Cistercian Abbey of Saint Mary, Granard, border more nearly on the times of authentic and known history.

In the spoliations of Henry and Elizabeth, the convent lands were granted away to laymen, and the edifices either razed to the ground, or perverted to the uses of the new creed. The few that escaped confiscation were soon deserted under the penal and relentless persecution that followed, and the departing Religious carried with them the records of most of our old foundations, which, if existing, are now to be found only in the MSS. of the Munich, Barberini, Vatican, and other continental libraries. Yet, from the earliest foundation of Saint Mel, at Ardagh, or of Saint Columba, in Innismore, Lough Gowna, down to the latest convent in the islands of Lough Ree, each has its story, its legends and traditions, which we, perhaps, may live to tell. Of some extensive ruins still remain, and about their ivied walls there clings many an old legend and oft-told tradition, that yet may help to clear up the obscure history of those times. In many instances, however, we must confess, that few vestiges have escaped the ruthless hand of the spoiler, and save a few crumbling ivy-covered walls, and the green mounds that mark the last resting place of their dead, there is little left, either of storied arch or cloistered aisle to tell of the extent of the edifices, or of the zeal and labours of the pious souls who dwelt within them.

The Dominican Convent of Saint Brigid, at Longford, was one of the most modern of the religious foundations of Ardagh, having been founded by one of the O'Ferralls in 1400. A sketch of its history will, however, serve as a first contribution towards the early history of that ancient church, and may perhaps prove interesting to the reader, as from local circumstances it has been to us.

O'Heyne tells us, "This convent was built for the Dominicans in 1400, by O'Ferrall, a very illustrious, ancient, and, for thosetimes, powerful dynast of Annaly". Harris, in his edition ofSir James Ware's Antiquities, distinctly names Cornelius O'Ferrall, the Dominican Bishop of Ardagh, as the founder. De Burgo, in hisHibernia Dominicana, from which most of our information is taken, shows that in the year 1400, in which the Convent of Saint Brigid was founded, Adam Lyons, a Dominican Friar, succeeded Gilbert MacBrady in the See of Ardagh; that Adam Lyons died in 1416, and was succeeded by Cornelius O'Ferrall, who was consecrated in February, 1418, when the Convent of Saint Brigid had been built and inhabited nearly eighteen years. Hence, it is very clear, that if Cornelius O'Ferrall was the founder, it must have been before his consecration as bishop, and very probably before his admission to Religion as a Dominican. It is not improbable that, like others of his name, he was dynast of Annaly before he assumed the mitre of Ardagh, and that having in his boyhood been a pupil of the Dominicans, as we learn from the Bull of his consecration, he had founded this convent for them long before he thought of joining the order himself.

Cornelius O'Ferrall died, "celebrated for his liberality to the poor", as Ware tells us, for which he was popularly known by the name "Eleemosynarius", or the "Almsgiver", and he was buried in the Abbey of Saint Brigid in 1424. The family of the O'Ferralls made repeated and ample grants to the convent, and, after the example of Bishop Cornelius, made the abbey their family burial place.

The church attached to the convent stood on the site now occupied by the Protestant parochial church of Longford, on the north side of the river Camlin. From it a raised causeway or road led through the meadows by the river side, to the coenobium, or convent proper, which stood on the opposite, or south side of the river, about a quarter of a mile distant. This church was destroyed by fire, and the convent reduced to ruins in 1428. The extent and character of this first convent may be gathered from O'Heyne, who says, it was a most extensive and magnificent structure, as shown by the magnitude of the ruins still remaining in his day (1750). The importance and influence which, in a very few years, the abbey had been able to attain, may be inferred from the fact, that Bulls were issued by several popes, granting indulgences to the faithful who would contribute to its restoration.

Of these the Bull of Martin V., March 1429, informs us, that the convent was of the "Strict Observance". From the Bull of Eugene IV., March, 1433, in the relation of the motives for granting the Indulgence, we learn the character and extent of the disaster which had befallen Saint Brigid's. "In consequenceof the wars prevailing in these parts, especially during the last six years, the church of St. Brigid at Longford had been destroyed by fire, and all the other buildings of the convent reduced to ruins. The necessary ornaments for decent celebration of divine worship were wanting, and the Religious had been of necessity compelled to pass to other houses". In a second Bull of the same pope, July 1438, we are told, "the Church of Saint Brigid had been consumed by fire, andmostof the convent buildings laid in ruins". The devastation is thus in some sort limited, which in the first was described as total.

The church was rebuilt, and the convent restored, but not at all on the same scale of magnificence that O'Heyne so extols in the first. For several centuries, however, it continued to exercise a great influence on religion in the district, and to send forth able, fervent, and illustrious pupils, to maintain and defend the faith, at home and abroad. Thus we find Doctor Gregory O'Ferrall, an alumnus of Saint Brigid's, Provincial of Ireland in 1644. Afterwards we find him lending energetic aid to the confederate Catholics at Kilkenny. When the treachery and intrigues of Ormond had seduced the Catholic chiefs into a deceitful peace, without any guarantee for the free exercise of their religion, the name of the Dominican provincial Gregory O'Ferrall is one of the signatures to the spirited and indignant protest of the national synod convened at Waterford in 1646, by the celebrated John Baptist Rinuccini, to condemn the conduct of the men who had agreed to such a peace, at once unjust, iniquitous, and pernicious to the Catholic cause, which they had sworn to defend. "Gregory O'Ferrall", says O'Heyne, "was a man of most meek and mortified appearance, and was esteemed by the people a mirror of every virtue". He died in 1672.

Anthony O'Molloy, another alumnus of Saint Brigid's, was about the same time procurator-general of the Dominicans in Ireland. For about forty years he discharged, with wonderful zeal and ability, the dangerous duty of conducting the newly-professed Dominicans of Ireland to Spain, and then aiding and directing their return after the completion of their ecclesiastical studies. This was at the time penal, and the delicate and difficult task was performed at the constant risk of his life. His labours, however, were crowned with singular success. He was known by the name of Father Antony of the Rosary, because of his admirable devotion to that pious exercise and to everything tending to the service of the Blessed Mother of God, through whose intercession, in moments of danger and difficulty, he is said, several times to have obtained miraculous deliverance. He died about 1680.

Laurence O'Ferrall was, about the same time, sent from SaintBrigid's as missionary apostolic into England, when the penal persecution of the times left the flock stripped of a pastor. He was arrested and flung into prison at London, where for more than a year he suffered many hardships. After a time, through the mercy of God, he was discharged, and fled to Belgium, where he long laboured under grievous illness, brought on by this imprisonment. As soon as he was sufficiently recovered, he set out again for England, but he was a second time arrested and flung into prison as a returned friar. Through the intercession of the Archduke Charles, afterwards Emperor Charles the Sixth, who was then in England, he obtained his discharge as a German subject, and was permitted to leave for Portugal. From thence he passed into Spain, where he was appointed chaplain to the Irish Brigade serving under Fitzjames Duke of Berwick. He died in 1708.

The names of other remarkable men, alumni of Saint Brigid's, might be cited if space permitted. Even so late as 1756, not more than a century ago, De Burgo speaks of James O'Ferrall, the prior, Nicholas Travers, and Francis O'Ferrall, as surviving representatives of that convent.

Few traces of either church or convent now remain. The causeway leading from the church to the abbey may still be recognized; and a crumbling portion of ivy-clad wall, within the Protestant glebe, on the other side of the river, shows where the coenobium stood. The lands attached to the convent were granted away for ever to Richard Nugent by 4th and 5th Philip and Mary. By 20th Elizabeth, this Friary, containing half an acre, house, cottage, twenty-eight acres of land, and six acres of demesne, was granted to Sir Nicholas Malby and his heirs, at 16s. per annum. Finally, January 29, 1615, James I. bestowed this monastery on Francis, Viscount Valentia. About 1756 the lands passed into the hands of Thomas Pakenham, when he was created Baron Longford, on the death of the last Baron Aungier, and the extinction of that ancient family. What was the extent and precise position of the abbey lands it is now impossible to tell. O'Heyne assures us they were ample and valuable, and even if we look only to the extent embraced under the church and coenobium, together with the townlands which, from their names, we can still recognize as abbey property, as Abbeycartron, there can be little doubt they were very extensive.

Among the legends preserved in connection with Saint Brigid's, the story of the martyrdom of Bernard and Laurence O'Ferrall, who died there for the faith in 1651, deserves to be recorded.

The short but brilliant struggle of the Confederate Catholics, marred by divided councils and the incapacity of some of its chiefs, was over. The seven years' war ended with an unsatisfactory peace, when the execution of the King in January, 1649, threw the country once more into turmoil and confusion. Then came the brief but sanguinary struggle against the parliamentary army under Cromwell. After the fall of Drogheda, Wexford, and other towns, in which massacres of the most fearful kind had been perpetrated, the parliamentary army, broken up into scattered bands, traversed the country in search of disaffected, and Papists, sacking and plundering with a license and cruelty that spread terror and desolation everywhere, so that there is scarce a hamlet or village in which the memory of the savage deeds of Cromwell's soldiery is not dwelt upon with horror to this day. A troop of these fanatics was stationed at Longford, and in the terror of their presence and bloody deeds, the Convent of Saint Brigid was abandoned, and the church deserted by the friars. Early one morning, either by accident or treachery, two of the friars, who had come there to pray, were seized by the soldiery. One of them, Bernard O'Ferrall, attempted to escape, and was struck down with four-and-twenty mortal wounds, in the doorway of the church, at the threshold of which he was left for dead. He survived to be carried to a place of safety, where he received the last Sacrament from one of the brotherhood who was hiding in the neighbourhood. Laurence O'Ferrall, the other, was seized within the church, and hurried before their officer by the exulting soldiery, who anticipated a day's savage sport in roasting or hanging the Popish priest, not an unusual amusement with them. He was recognized by the officer as an adherent of the Catholic army during the late troubles, and was ordered out for execution next day. A respite of three days was granted at the intercession of some persons, whose advocacy the martyr complained of, as unprofitable and unwelcome, and during the three days' interval he ceased not to pray, with abundant tears, that God would not suffer the palm of martyrdom to be snatched from him. On the third morning, when led out for execution, he addressed the assembled people from the scaffold in eloquent, fervent language, and denounced the bloody persecutions and violence of the fanatics with such force, that the officer in charge—stung to rage—ordered him to be silenced with the rope, and flung off without further parley. He then bade farewell to the people, and having placed his rosary around his neck, and taken the crucifix in his right hand, he calmly arranged both hands under the scapular of his habit, and submitted himself to the executioner. After he had been cast off, and when he was hanging at the end of the fatal rope, and life extinct, both hands were drawn from under the habit, and uniting raised the crucifix over his head as the symbol and pledge of his triumph. This most extraordinary sight made a very great impression on thebeholders, and the officer himself was so much struck and terrified that he ordered the body to be at once cut down respectfully, and gave it over to the people to be buried without molestation. We find that a safe-conduct was even given to some of the priests hiding in the neighbourhood to attend his obsequies, at which the people too attended in an immense concourse. The story of Bernard and Laurence O'Ferrall is only one of many instances of the bloody deeds of that fearful time.

Whilst thus we close our sketch, we venture a hope that at no distant day the present venerated successor of Saint Mel may, in the cause of Catholic education, be able to introduce the cloistered sisters of Saint Dominic to revive the name, the spirit, and the good works of the old Dominican Convent of Saint Brigid.

J. R.

1. At Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, ought the profound inclination be made during the singing of the two versesTantum ergo Sacramentum, Veneremur cernui, or only during the singing of the wordsVeneremur cernui?

2. What ceremonies are to be observed by the deacon, or by the assistant priest, when, acting on the permission given by the Decree of the 12th August, 1854, the deacon consigns the ostensorium to the celebrant before the Benediction, and receives it from him after the Benediction has been given?

3. What rule should a priest follow when he finds in the Ordo a regulation which he believes to be certainly incorrect?

1. It is beyond doubt, that the inclination ought to be made whilst the entire versesTantum ergo Sacramentum, Veneremur cernui, are being sung; and if, in any church, custom has limited the inclination to the two last words, it has arisen from this, that whenever the celebrant intones the hymn, he makes the inclination only after the intonation. The ministers, however, are wrong in imitating him in this.

"Tum in officio divino", says Cavalieri, t. iv., c. viii.,Inst. Clem., § 33, n. 49, "quam in precibus omnibus coram SS. Sacramento, dum praedictus versusTantum ergodicitur, ab omnibus omnino persistendum erit in inclinatione usque adcernui. Haec est", says Gardellini (Inst. cl. ibid.n. 19), "praxis quae obtinet in majoribus Urbis basilicis".

This doctrine is followed by modern authors.

2. Before we reply to the question, it will be useful to make two remarks. The first has reference to the difference between the functions of the deacon and those of the assistant priest. If the celebrant be assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, the assistant need not do more than place the Blessed Sacrament on the throne, and lower it thence at the proper time. He may also extract the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle before the exposition, and replace it therein after the Benediction. The office of assistant appears to have been instituted as a measure of precaution against the danger which might result from the near approach of the deacon's vestments to the lights, in case he took down the ostensorium, or to guard against other inconveniences. But there is no reason why the assistant should present the ostensorium to the celebrant when the deacon and sub-deacon are present.

We should remark, in the next place, that, according to the text of theCeremoniale Episcoporum, and of theInstructio Clementina, the priest, after receiving the humeral veil, mounts the steps without the ministers, and himself takes the ostensorium. Authors prescribe that the deacon and sub-deacon should kneel on the highest step, and support the celebrant's cope during the benediction. In their absence, this is done by the master of ceremonies, or two clerks. When the benediction has been given, the priest having completed the circle, places the Blessed Sacrament in the corporal, genuflects, and descends with the sub-deacon, whilst the deacon restores the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle, unless this be done by the assistant priest, in which case the deacon descends with the celebrant and the sub-deacon. According to Baldeschi, the veil is removed from the celebrant when he genuflects in the predella, after having given the benediction.

The rubric of theCeremoniale Episcoporum(l. ii. c. xxiii., n. 27) makes no mention of the assistant priest, supposes that the bishop himself takes the ostensorium from the altar, and expressly declares that he himself replaces it on the corporal.

"Accedat ad altare et accepto tabernaculo seu ostensorio cum sanctissimo Sacramento, illud ambabus manibus velatis elevatum tenens, vertens se ad populum, cum illo signum crucis super populum ter faciet nihil dicens. Quo facto iterum deponet sanctissimum Sacramentum super altare".

We read in theInstructio Clementina(§ xxxi.): "The celebrant, on his knees, will take the humeral veil, and ascending the altar without attendants, after due reverence, will take the ostensorium in his hands, which are covered with the extremity of the humeral veil, and with it will give the benediction to the people; and having replaced the Blessed Sacrament on the corporal, willdescend, and remain on his knees in his place. The deacon, or a priest with stole, will immediately, after due reverence, enclose the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle". ThisInstructiohas been explained by Cavalieri, Tetamo, and Gardellini, who thus express themselves—

"Sacerdos", says Cavalieri (t. iv., c. ix.), "ascendit ... ad altare, et ibi, facta genuflexione unico genu accipit in manibus coöpertis per ejusdem veli extremitates ostensorium.... Quando sacerdos ascendit ut supra altare, una cum eo ascendunt itidem sacri ministri, sed hi genuflectunt postea in ore suppedanei, ubi inclinati elevant pluvialis fimbrias dum sacerdos benedicit populum. In defectu autem ministrorum sacrorum id praestant sacerdos adjutor et caeremoniarius, vel alii clerici hinc inde genuflexi.... Celebrans data benedictione ... super corporale Sacramentum collocat ... et deinde facta genuflexione unico genu, descendit cum subdiacono ad infimum altaris gradum, ubi iterum cum eodem genuflexus, per eumdem subdiaconum, vel caeremoniarium exuitur velo humerali. Diaconus interim accedit ad altare, et facta genuflexione unico genu, tabernaculum aperit et in eo reponit Sacramentum, cui genuflexione iterum facta, surgens ostiolum claudit et postea descendit ad locum suum, ad quem cum accesserit, surgunt omnes.... Quod si ultra sacros ministros adsistat sacerdos alter, hic imposita sibi stola Sacramentum ut supra recondet, et diaconus cum celebrante pariter descendet, et ab eo removebit velum humerale".

Tetamo (Append., e. iii., n. 48 et 49) thus speaks:

"Sacerdos ascendit ad altare, et ibi facta genuflexione unico genu, ut expeditius surgat, accipit in manibus coöpertis per ejusdem veli extremitates, ostensorium.... Benedicit.... Quando sacerdos ascendit, ut supra, altare, una cum eo ascendunt itidem sacri ministri, sed hi genuflectunt postea in ore suppedanei, ubi inclinati elevant pluvialis fimbrias, dum sacerdos benedicit populum; in defectu autem ministrorum sacrorum, id praestant sacerdos adjutor et caeremoniarius, vel alii clerici hinc inde genuflexi. Celebrans, data benedictione ... super corporale Sacramentum collocat".

Gardellini (n. 12 et 13), in his commentary, writes:

"Quando autem sacerdos ascendit ad altare, cum eo ascendunt etiam sacri ministri, sed hi genuflectere debent in ore suppedanei, ubi inclinati elevant pluvialis fimbrias, dum sacerdos benedicit populum.... Celebrans, data benedictione ... collocat super corporale Sacramentum ...; et deinde, facta prius genuflexione, descendit cum subdiacono ad infimum altaris gradum, ubi genuflexi ambo manent, amoto interim velo a celebrantis humeris a subdiacono, vel ut alii malunt, a caeremoniario. Interea diaconus remanens in suppedaneo altaris, reponit Sacramentum in tabernaculo, factis ante et post debitis genuflexionibus.... Quamvis vero deceat et congruat hoc munus per diaconum expleri, non est tamen necessario per eum implendum: potest alter sacerdos cum superpelliceo et stola hoc fungi munere, ideirco instructio ait:Il diacono, o un sacerdote con stola, quemadmodumfieri debet in aliis expositionibus, in quibus non parantur ministri sacri".

All the ancient authors agree with this view.

"Responso a choroAmen", says Bauldry (part. iv., art. iii., n. 33, 35, et 37), "celebrans, nihil addens, ascendit ad altare, genuflectit, et sine alterius ministerio accipit velatis manibus, ut prius, tabernaculum, vertens se ad populum ... benedicit ..., et gyrum perficiens, ostensorium collocat super altare.... Interim dum celebrans benedicit, ministri hinc indegenuflexi, et inclinati facie versa ad sanctissimum Sacramentum, elevant partes anteriores pluvialis illius, quod et faciunt assistentes in pari casu.... Deposito sanctissimo Sacramento a celebrante super altare, ipse statim, genuflexione facta descendit ad secundum gradum ut prius, ubi genuflexus manet. Tum ponitur, si opus sit, scabellum ... pro diacono qui statim amoto velo ab eo pre subdiaconum vel caeremoniarium ascendit ad altare, ubi, facta genuflexione, reponit sanctissimum Sacramentum in tabernaculo".

Catalani, speaking of the benediction given by the bishop after the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, says (Cer. Ep., l. ii., c. xxviii., n. 27):

"Episcopus ... accepto tabernaculo sive ostensorio cum sanctissimo Sacramento, per se scilicet et sine alterius ministerio, illud ambabus manibus velatis elevatum tenens, vertens se ad populum, cum illo signum crucis super populum ter faciet.... Dataque benedictione, Episcopus deponet sanctissimum Sacramentum super altare".

Gavantus says the same (sect. i., part iv., tit. xii., n. 7):

"Ascendit (celebrans) ad altare, genuflectit, et ipsemet nullo diaconi ministerio accipit velatis manibus, ut prius, tabernaculum, benedicit cum eo populum ... nihil dicens, et gyrum perficiens reverenter reponit".

Merati thus comments on the passage:

"Celebrans ... ascendit ad altare ... et absque alterius ministerio accipit velatis manibus ostensorium".

Baldeschi gives the same directions.

But in spite of these authorities, it is customary in some churches for the deacon to ascend with the priest, to take the ostensorium, and present it to the celebrant, to receive it from the same after the benediction, and to replace it on the corporal. This usage is established in Rome, and has been confirmed by a decree of the 12th August, 1854, published in theAnalecta.

Question: "An liceat sacerdoti accipere ostensorium per manus diaconi istud ex altari acceptum porrigentis, ut populo benedictio impertiatur, et post benedictionem remittere ostensorium diacono, qui super altare deponet, prout fit in nonnullis ecclesiis? Vel ipsemet sacerdos debeat accipere ostensorium ex altari, et data benedictione, super altare deponere, sicut expresse docent Gavantus in rubrica Miss. part. vi., tit. xiii., n. 7; Merati in Gavantum", etc.

Answer: "Quoad primam partem, licere etiam ex praxi ecclesiarum Urbis; quoad secundam partem, provisum in primo".

Hence it appears that theInstructio Clementinaand theCaeremonialehave been too rigorously interpreted by old authors. We are at liberty to choose whichever of the two usages may agree better with the arrangements of the altar, and may be more easy to carry out. This is the common opinion of recent authors, and is founded on Roman usage and on the decision just cited. In addition, if the deacon is to receive the ostensorium from the priest's hands, the priest is not bound to complete the circle: he returns towards the altar, on the epistle side, where the deacon is. This follows from the decree of the 21st March, 1676, No. 2776:

Question: "An in benedicendo populum cum sanctissimo Sacramento sit servandus modus infrascriptus: Cum sacerdos stat ante populum, ostensorium ante pectus tenet, tum elevat illud decenti mora non supra caput, sed tantum usque ad oculos, et eodem modo illud demittit infra pectus, mox iterum recte illud attollit usque ad pectus, et deinde ad sinistrum humerum ducit, et reducit ad dexterum, et rursus ante pectus reducit, ibique aliquantulum sistit quasi peracta ad omnes mundi partes cruce, eam etiam venerandam omnibus praebet: tunc gyrum perficiens, collocat ostensorium super altare?"Answer: "Si placet, potest observare supradictum modum.... Sin minus, servandus est modus dispositus inCaer. Ep., l. ii., c. xxxiii., ubi requiritur tantummodo ut cum eodem SS. Sacramento celebrans producat signum crucis super populum".

Answer: "Si placet, potest observare supradictum modum.... Sin minus, servandus est modus dispositus inCaer. Ep., l. ii., c. xxxiii., ubi requiritur tantummodo ut cum eodem SS. Sacramento celebrans producat signum crucis super populum".

It is now easy to fix the ceremonies to be observed in cases where the deacon presents the ostensorium to the priest, and receives it from him after the benediction. First, the celebrant kneels in receiving the Blessed Sacrament from the deacon, and the deacon, when he receives it from the celebrant. This is a standing liturgical rule—the rubric of the Missal for Holy Thursday says:

"Finita Missa ... fit processio.... Celebrans indutus pluviali albo ... in medio genuflexus ... accepto calice cum Sacramento de manu diaconi stantis.... Cum autem ventum fuerit ad locum paratum diaconus genuflexus a sacerdote stante accipit calicem cum Sacramento".

In theCer. Ep.(l. ii., c. xxiii., n. 12 et 13):

"Diaconus assistens ... capit SS. Sacramentum de altari, et illud, stans, offert episcopo genuflexo. Cum pervenerit ad sacellum ubi Sacramentum deponi debet ... cum erit episcopus ante supremum gradum altaris, diaconus accipiet de manu ipsius stantis SS. Sacramentum genuflexus".

In the rubric for the procession of Corpus Christi (ibid., c. xxxiii., nos. 20 et 24):

"Diaconus assistens a dexteris accedet ad altare, et cum debitis reverentiis accipiet tabernaculum sive ostensorium cum SS. Sacramentode altari, et illud in manibus Episcopi genuflexi collocabit.... Postquam Episcopus pervenerit ad supremum altaris gradum, diaconus a dextris cum debita reverentia et genuflexione ... accipiet de manu ipsius Episcopi stantis SS. Sacramentum".

Some respectable authorities allow the Blessed Sacrament to be received by the sacred minister standing. We see no reasons in support of this opinion. The ceremonies to be observed are the following:—The celebrant, having received the humeral veil, ascends the altar with the sacred ministers. The celebrant and subdeacon stop at the upper step, and kneel on the extremity of the predella; the deacon goes up to the altar, genuflects, takes the ostensorium, hands it to the celebrant, and then kneels on the epistle side of the predella. The celebrant, having received the ostensorium, rises, gives the benediction, consigns the ostensorium to the deacon, and kneels once more on the extremity of the predella. The deacon, after receiving the ostensorium, stands up, places it on the corporal, and restores the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle. Meantime the celebrant, laying aside the veil, descends to his place at the foot of the altar, as soon as the Blessed Sacrament has been removed.

3. It is clear that in such case he ought to follow the general Rubric. The Ordo is intended to set forth the application of liturgical rules to particular cases; and it is no wonder that in a task so minute, errors should sometimes occur. But if the mistake be not clearly and evidently such, the priest should follow the Ordo. "When the bishop publishes a directory", says M. Falise (pag. 276, 3rd edition), "the priests of the diocese are bound to conform to it not only in what is certain, but also in questions on which a difference of opinion exists among authors, and even when the contrary of what is prescribed appears certain. But this rule does not hold when the regulations are evidently contrary to the Rubrics". The following decrees bear on this point:—

1st Decree.Question."An in casibus dubiis adhaerendum est kalendario dioecesis, sive quoad officium publicum et privatum, sive quoad Missam, sive quoad vestium sacrarum colorem, etiamsi quibusdam probabilior videtur sententia kalendario opposita? Et quatenus affirmative, an idem dicendum de casu quo certum alicui videretur errare kalendarium?"Answer."Standum kalendario". (Decree 23 May, 1833, n. 4746, q. 2).2nd Decree.Question." ... 6. Cum pro nonnullis sanctis propriis regni Hispaniarum de quibus recitatur officium ritu dupl. min. habeantur lectiones primi nocturni de communi, pro aliis vero de scriptura occurrente, quaeritur quae certa regula servari debeat quoad numeratas primi nocturni lectiones in officiis duplicibus minoribus? 7. An quoad easdem lectiones primi nocturni in duplicibus minoribus standum sit dispositionibus directorii, vel breviarii? 8. Anlicitum sit in duplicibus minoribus, et etiam semiduplicibus, lectiones primi nocturni pro lubitu desumere vel de communi, vel de scriptura, quando diversitas extat inter dispositionem directorii et breviarii?"Answer." ... Ad 6. Lectiones primi nocturni in casu esse de scriptura, nisi diversae in indulto expresse assignentur. Ad 7. Jam provisum in proximo. Ad 8. Ut ad proximum". (Decree 27 August, 1863, n. 4787, q. 6, 7, et 8).

2nd Decree.Question." ... 6. Cum pro nonnullis sanctis propriis regni Hispaniarum de quibus recitatur officium ritu dupl. min. habeantur lectiones primi nocturni de communi, pro aliis vero de scriptura occurrente, quaeritur quae certa regula servari debeat quoad numeratas primi nocturni lectiones in officiis duplicibus minoribus? 7. An quoad easdem lectiones primi nocturni in duplicibus minoribus standum sit dispositionibus directorii, vel breviarii? 8. Anlicitum sit in duplicibus minoribus, et etiam semiduplicibus, lectiones primi nocturni pro lubitu desumere vel de communi, vel de scriptura, quando diversitas extat inter dispositionem directorii et breviarii?"Answer." ... Ad 6. Lectiones primi nocturni in casu esse de scriptura, nisi diversae in indulto expresse assignentur. Ad 7. Jam provisum in proximo. Ad 8. Ut ad proximum". (Decree 27 August, 1863, n. 4787, q. 6, 7, et 8).

The following is the text of the letter received from the Holy Office by the English Bishops, in condemnation of the society lately established in England for promoting the union of Christian Churches:

Supremae S. Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis Epistola ad omnes Angliae Episcopos.Apostolicae Sedi nuntiatum est, catholicos nonnullos et ecclesiasticos quoque viros Societatiad procurandam, uti aiunt,Christianitatis unitatemLondini anno 1857 erectae, nomen dedisse, et jam plures evulgatos esse ephemeridum articulos, qui catholicorum huic Societati plaudentium nomine inscribuntur, vel ab ecclesiasticis viris eamdem Societatem commendantibus exarati perhibentur. Et sane quaenam sit huius Societatis indoles vel quo ea spectet, nedum ex articulis ephemeridis cui titulus "the union review", sed ex ipso folio quo socii invitantur et adscribuntur, facile intelligitur. A protestantibus quippe efformata et directa eo excitata est spiritu, quem expresse profitetur, tres videlicet christianas communiones romano-catholicam, graeco-schismaticam et anglicanam, quamvis invicem separatas ac divisas, aequo tamen jure catholicum nomen sibi vindicare. Aditus igitur in illam patet omnibus ubique locorum degentibus tum catholicis, tum graeco-shismaticis, tum anglicanis, ea tamen lege ut nemini liceat de variis doctrinae capitibus in quibus dissentiunt quaestionem movere, et singulis fas sit propriae religiosae confessionis placita tranquillo animo sectari. Sociis vero omnibus preces ipsa recitandas, et sacerdotibus Sacrificia celebranda indicit iuxta suam intentionem: ut nempe tres memoratae christianae communiones, utpote quae, prout supponitur, Ecclesiam catholicam omnes simul iam constituunt, ad unum corpus efformandum tandem aliquando coeant.

Supremae S. Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis Epistola ad omnes Angliae Episcopos.

Apostolicae Sedi nuntiatum est, catholicos nonnullos et ecclesiasticos quoque viros Societatiad procurandam, uti aiunt,Christianitatis unitatemLondini anno 1857 erectae, nomen dedisse, et jam plures evulgatos esse ephemeridum articulos, qui catholicorum huic Societati plaudentium nomine inscribuntur, vel ab ecclesiasticis viris eamdem Societatem commendantibus exarati perhibentur. Et sane quaenam sit huius Societatis indoles vel quo ea spectet, nedum ex articulis ephemeridis cui titulus "the union review", sed ex ipso folio quo socii invitantur et adscribuntur, facile intelligitur. A protestantibus quippe efformata et directa eo excitata est spiritu, quem expresse profitetur, tres videlicet christianas communiones romano-catholicam, graeco-schismaticam et anglicanam, quamvis invicem separatas ac divisas, aequo tamen jure catholicum nomen sibi vindicare. Aditus igitur in illam patet omnibus ubique locorum degentibus tum catholicis, tum graeco-shismaticis, tum anglicanis, ea tamen lege ut nemini liceat de variis doctrinae capitibus in quibus dissentiunt quaestionem movere, et singulis fas sit propriae religiosae confessionis placita tranquillo animo sectari. Sociis vero omnibus preces ipsa recitandas, et sacerdotibus Sacrificia celebranda indicit iuxta suam intentionem: ut nempe tres memoratae christianae communiones, utpote quae, prout supponitur, Ecclesiam catholicam omnes simul iam constituunt, ad unum corpus efformandum tandem aliquando coeant.

Suprema S. O. Congregatio, ad cuius examen hoc negotium de more delatum est, re mature perpensa, necessarium iudicavit sedulam ponendam esse operam, ut edoceantur fideles ne haereticorum ductu hanc cum iisdem haereticis et schismaticis societatem ineant. Non dubitant profecto Eminentissimi Patres Cardinales una mecum praepositi Sacrae Inquisitioni, quin istius regionis Episcopi pro ea, qua eminent, caritate et doctrina omnem iam adhibeant diligentiam ad vitia demonstranda, quibus ista Societas scatet, et ad propulsanda quae secum affert pericula: nihilominus muneri suo deesse viderentur, si pastoralem eorumdem Episcoporum zelum in re adeo gravi vehementius non inflammarent: eo enim periculosior est haec novitas, quo ad speciem pia et de christianae Societatis unitate admodum sollicita videtur.Fundamentum cui ipsa innititur huiusmodi est quod divinam Ecclesiae constitutionem susque deque vertit. Tota enim in eo est, ut supponat veram Iesu Christi Ecclesiam constare partim ex romana Ecclesia per universum orbem diffusa et propagata, partimvero ex schismate photiano et ex anglicana haeresi, quibus aeque ac Ecclesiae romanae unus sit Dominus,una fideset unum baptisma. Ad removendas vero dissensiones, quibus hae tres christianae communiones cum gravi scandalo et cum veritatis et caritatis dispendio divexantur, preces et sacrificia indicit, ut a Deo gratia unitatis impetretur. Nihil certe viro catholico potius esse debet, quam ut inter Christianos schismata et dissensiones a radice evellantur, et Christiani omnes sintsolliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis(Ephes, 4). Quapropter Ecclesia Catholica preces Deo O. M. fundit et Christifideles ad orandum excitat, ut ad veram fidem convertantur et in gratiam cum Sancta Romana Ecclesia, extra quam non est salus, eiuratis erroribus, restituantur quicumque omnes ab eadem Ecclesia recesserunt: imo ut omnes homines ad agnitionem veritatis, Deo bene iuvante, perveniant. At quod Christifideles et ecclesiastici viri haereticorum ductu, et quod peius est, iuxta intentionem haeresi quammaxime pollutam et infectam pro christiana unitate orent, tolerari nullo modo potest. Vera Iesu Christi Ecclesia quadruplici nota, quam in symbolo credendam asserimus, auctoritate divina constituitur et dignoscitur: et quaelibet ex hisce notis ita cum aliis cohaeret ut ab iis nequeat seiungi: hinc fit, ut quae vere est et dicitur catholica, unitatis simul, sanctitatis et Apostolicae successionis praerogativa debeat effulgere. Ecclesia igitur catholica una est unitate conspicua perfectaque orbis terrae et omnium gentium, ea profecto unitate, cuius principium, radix et origo indefectibilis est beati Petri Apostolorum Principis eiusque in Cathedra romana Successorum suprema auctoritas et potior principalitas. Nec alia est Ecclesia catholica nisi quae super unum Petrum aedificata in unum connexum corpus atque compactum unitate fidei et caritatis assurgit: quod beatus Cyprianus in epl. 45. sincere professus est, dum Cornelium Papam in hunc modum alloquebatur:ut Te collegae nostri et communionem tuam idest Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter et caritatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent. Et idipsum quoque Hormisdas Pontifex ab Episcopis acacianum schisma eiurantibus assertum voluit in formula totius christianae antiquitatis suffragio comprobata, ubisequestrati a communione Ecclesiae catholicaeii dicuntur, qui suntnon consentientes in omnibus Sedi Apostolicae. Et tantum abest quin communiones a romana Sede separatae iure suo catholicae nominari et haberi possint, ut potius ex hac ipsa separatione et discordia dignoscatur quaenam societates et quinam christiani nec veram fidem teneant nec veram Christi doctrinam: quemadmodum iam inde a secundo Ecclesiae saeculo luculentissime demonstrabat S. Irenaeus lib. 3. contra haeres. c. 3. Caveant igitur summo studio Christifideles ne hisce societatibus coniungantur, quibus salva fidei integritate nequeant adhaerere; et audiant sanctum Augustinum docentem, nec veritatem nec pietatem esse posse ubi christiana unitas et Sancti Spiritus caritas deest.Praeterea inde quoque a londinensi Societate fideles abhorrere summopere debent, quod conspirantes in eam etindifferentismofavent et scandalum ingerunt. Societas illa, vel saltem eiusdem conditores et rectores profitentur, photianismum et anglicanismum duas esse eiusdem verae christianae religionis formas, in quibus aeque ac in Ecclesia catholica Deo placere datum sit: et dissensionibus utique christianas huiusmodi communiones invicem urgeri, sed citra fidei violationem, propterea quia una eademque manet earumdem fides. Haec tamen est summa pestilentissimae indifferentiae in negotio religionis, quae hac potissimum aetate in maximam serpit animarum perniciem. Quare non est cur demonstretur catholicos huic Societati adhaerentes spiritualis ruinae catholicis iuxta atque acatholicis occasionem praebere, praesertim quum ex vana expectatione ut tres memoratae communiones integrae et in sua quaeque persuasione persistentes simul in unum coeant, Societas illa acatholicorum conversiones ad fidem aversetur et per ephemerides a se evulgatas impedire conetur.Maxima igitur sollicitudine curandum est, ne catholici vel specie pietatis vel mala sententia decepti Societati, de qua hic habitus est sermo, aliisque similibus adscribantur vel quoquomodo faveant, et ne fallaci novae christianae unitatis desiderio abrepti ab ea desciscant unitate perfecta, quae mirabili munere gratiae Dei in Petri soliditate consistit.Romae hac die 16. septembris 1864.C. Card. Patrizi.

Fundamentum cui ipsa innititur huiusmodi est quod divinam Ecclesiae constitutionem susque deque vertit. Tota enim in eo est, ut supponat veram Iesu Christi Ecclesiam constare partim ex romana Ecclesia per universum orbem diffusa et propagata, partimvero ex schismate photiano et ex anglicana haeresi, quibus aeque ac Ecclesiae romanae unus sit Dominus,una fideset unum baptisma. Ad removendas vero dissensiones, quibus hae tres christianae communiones cum gravi scandalo et cum veritatis et caritatis dispendio divexantur, preces et sacrificia indicit, ut a Deo gratia unitatis impetretur. Nihil certe viro catholico potius esse debet, quam ut inter Christianos schismata et dissensiones a radice evellantur, et Christiani omnes sintsolliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis(Ephes, 4). Quapropter Ecclesia Catholica preces Deo O. M. fundit et Christifideles ad orandum excitat, ut ad veram fidem convertantur et in gratiam cum Sancta Romana Ecclesia, extra quam non est salus, eiuratis erroribus, restituantur quicumque omnes ab eadem Ecclesia recesserunt: imo ut omnes homines ad agnitionem veritatis, Deo bene iuvante, perveniant. At quod Christifideles et ecclesiastici viri haereticorum ductu, et quod peius est, iuxta intentionem haeresi quammaxime pollutam et infectam pro christiana unitate orent, tolerari nullo modo potest. Vera Iesu Christi Ecclesia quadruplici nota, quam in symbolo credendam asserimus, auctoritate divina constituitur et dignoscitur: et quaelibet ex hisce notis ita cum aliis cohaeret ut ab iis nequeat seiungi: hinc fit, ut quae vere est et dicitur catholica, unitatis simul, sanctitatis et Apostolicae successionis praerogativa debeat effulgere. Ecclesia igitur catholica una est unitate conspicua perfectaque orbis terrae et omnium gentium, ea profecto unitate, cuius principium, radix et origo indefectibilis est beati Petri Apostolorum Principis eiusque in Cathedra romana Successorum suprema auctoritas et potior principalitas. Nec alia est Ecclesia catholica nisi quae super unum Petrum aedificata in unum connexum corpus atque compactum unitate fidei et caritatis assurgit: quod beatus Cyprianus in epl. 45. sincere professus est, dum Cornelium Papam in hunc modum alloquebatur:ut Te collegae nostri et communionem tuam idest Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter et caritatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent. Et idipsum quoque Hormisdas Pontifex ab Episcopis acacianum schisma eiurantibus assertum voluit in formula totius christianae antiquitatis suffragio comprobata, ubisequestrati a communione Ecclesiae catholicaeii dicuntur, qui suntnon consentientes in omnibus Sedi Apostolicae. Et tantum abest quin communiones a romana Sede separatae iure suo catholicae nominari et haberi possint, ut potius ex hac ipsa separatione et discordia dignoscatur quaenam societates et quinam christiani nec veram fidem teneant nec veram Christi doctrinam: quemadmodum iam inde a secundo Ecclesiae saeculo luculentissime demonstrabat S. Irenaeus lib. 3. contra haeres. c. 3. Caveant igitur summo studio Christifideles ne hisce societatibus coniungantur, quibus salva fidei integritate nequeant adhaerere; et audiant sanctum Augustinum docentem, nec veritatem nec pietatem esse posse ubi christiana unitas et Sancti Spiritus caritas deest.

Praeterea inde quoque a londinensi Societate fideles abhorrere summopere debent, quod conspirantes in eam etindifferentismofavent et scandalum ingerunt. Societas illa, vel saltem eiusdem conditores et rectores profitentur, photianismum et anglicanismum duas esse eiusdem verae christianae religionis formas, in quibus aeque ac in Ecclesia catholica Deo placere datum sit: et dissensionibus utique christianas huiusmodi communiones invicem urgeri, sed citra fidei violationem, propterea quia una eademque manet earumdem fides. Haec tamen est summa pestilentissimae indifferentiae in negotio religionis, quae hac potissimum aetate in maximam serpit animarum perniciem. Quare non est cur demonstretur catholicos huic Societati adhaerentes spiritualis ruinae catholicis iuxta atque acatholicis occasionem praebere, praesertim quum ex vana expectatione ut tres memoratae communiones integrae et in sua quaeque persuasione persistentes simul in unum coeant, Societas illa acatholicorum conversiones ad fidem aversetur et per ephemerides a se evulgatas impedire conetur.

Maxima igitur sollicitudine curandum est, ne catholici vel specie pietatis vel mala sententia decepti Societati, de qua hic habitus est sermo, aliisque similibus adscribantur vel quoquomodo faveant, et ne fallaci novae christianae unitatis desiderio abrepti ab ea desciscant unitate perfecta, quae mirabili munere gratiae Dei in Petri soliditate consistit.

Romae hac die 16. septembris 1864.

C. Card. Patrizi.

Quidam Sacerdotes regnorum Belgii et Hollandiae petunt solutionem sequentium dubiorum:Gury, Scavini, et alii referunt tanquam responsa S. Poenitentiariae, data die 16 Januarii 1834:"Posse personis quae sunt in potestate patrisfamilias, cui facta est legitima facultas edendi carnes, permitti uti cibis patrifamilias indultis, adjecta conditione de non permiscendis licitis atque interdictis epulis, et de unica comestione in die, iis qui jejunare tenentur".Igitur Quaeritur.1. An haec resolutio valeat ubique terrarum?2. Dum dicitur "permitti posse", petitur à quo ista permissio danda sit, et an sufficiat permissio data à simplici confessario?Altera resolutio: "Fideles qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, licitè posse in quadragesima, dum indultum concessum est, omnibus diebus indulto comprehensis, vesci carnibus aut lacticiniis per idem indultum permissis, quoties per diem edunt".Dubitatur igitur an haec resolutio valeat in dioecesi cujus Epus, auctoritate apostolica concedit fidelibus ut feria 2a.3a.5a.temporis quadragesimae possint semel in die vesci carnibus et ovis, iis verò qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, permittit ut ovis saepius in die utantur?Quaeritur Itaque.1. An, non obstantibus memorata phrasi "ovis saepius in die utantur" et tenore concessionis, possint ii, qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, vi dictae resolutionis vesci carnibus quoties per diem edunt?2. An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris, aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut istis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?S. Poenitentiaria, maturè consideratis propositis dubiis, dilecto in Christo oratori in primis respondet transmittendo declarationem ab ipsa S. Poenitentiaria alias datam, scilicet: "Ratio permissionis de qua in resolutione data à S. Poenitentiaria 16 Jan. 1834, non est indultum patrifamilias concessum, sed impotentia, in qua versantur filii familias, observandi praeceptum".Deinde ad duo priora dubia respondet: Quoad primum, affirmativè. Quoad secundum, sufficere permissionem factam à simplici confessario.Ad duo verò posteriora dubia respondet: Quoad primum, negativè—Quoad secundum, non aequiparari.Datum Romae in S. Poenitentiaria, die 27 Maii, 1863.A. M. Card. Cagiano, M.P.

Quidam Sacerdotes regnorum Belgii et Hollandiae petunt solutionem sequentium dubiorum:

Gury, Scavini, et alii referunt tanquam responsa S. Poenitentiariae, data die 16 Januarii 1834:

"Posse personis quae sunt in potestate patrisfamilias, cui facta est legitima facultas edendi carnes, permitti uti cibis patrifamilias indultis, adjecta conditione de non permiscendis licitis atque interdictis epulis, et de unica comestione in die, iis qui jejunare tenentur".

Igitur Quaeritur.

1. An haec resolutio valeat ubique terrarum?

2. Dum dicitur "permitti posse", petitur à quo ista permissio danda sit, et an sufficiat permissio data à simplici confessario?

Altera resolutio: "Fideles qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, licitè posse in quadragesima, dum indultum concessum est, omnibus diebus indulto comprehensis, vesci carnibus aut lacticiniis per idem indultum permissis, quoties per diem edunt".

Dubitatur igitur an haec resolutio valeat in dioecesi cujus Epus, auctoritate apostolica concedit fidelibus ut feria 2a.3a.5a.temporis quadragesimae possint semel in die vesci carnibus et ovis, iis verò qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, permittit ut ovis saepius in die utantur?

Quaeritur Itaque.

1. An, non obstantibus memorata phrasi "ovis saepius in die utantur" et tenore concessionis, possint ii, qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, vi dictae resolutionis vesci carnibus quoties per diem edunt?

2. An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris, aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut istis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?

S. Poenitentiaria, maturè consideratis propositis dubiis, dilecto in Christo oratori in primis respondet transmittendo declarationem ab ipsa S. Poenitentiaria alias datam, scilicet: "Ratio permissionis de qua in resolutione data à S. Poenitentiaria 16 Jan. 1834, non est indultum patrifamilias concessum, sed impotentia, in qua versantur filii familias, observandi praeceptum".

Deinde ad duo priora dubia respondet: Quoad primum, affirmativè. Quoad secundum, sufficere permissionem factam à simplici confessario.

Ad duo verò posteriora dubia respondet: Quoad primum, negativè—Quoad secundum, non aequiparari.

Datum Romae in S. Poenitentiaria, die 27 Maii, 1863.

A. M. Card. Cagiano, M.P.

Letter of the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda to the Bishop of Southwark, explaining the foregoing answer.From your letter of February 19th, 1864, I gather that you would wish to know the reason why the S. P. replied on the 27th of May, 1863,Non aequipararito this question: An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris, aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut istis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?After having made due inquiry, I am now enabled to state the reason why the sick are not, in respect of the quality of food on days subject to the prohibition of the Church, on the same level with those who are excused from fasting by reason of age or labour; and it is, that the latter may eat such prohibited food as the Indult permits, solely in force of the Lenten Indult, which may vary in its limitations or dispensations from year to year; whereas the sick may eat prohibited food according to their state of health and the judgment of their doctor. Thus,e.g., on some days the Lenten Indult may perchance not allow lard to be used as a condiment, and on such days persons dispensed from the fast on account of age or labour must abstain from using it as a condiment, whilst a sick person may eat meat even on the excepted days if his health requires it. I think this explanation will help you to put an end to the doubts described in your letter.Original.Dalla sua lettera del 9 Febbrajo p.p. ho potuto rilevare che VS. gradirebbe di conoscer la ragione per cui al dubbio:An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut illis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?la S. Penitenzieria abbia risposto in data del 27 maggio 1863,Non aequiparari. Ora avendo preso in proposito le notizie opportune, sono in caso di significarle, che la ragione per cui gl' infermi riguardo alla qualità dei cibi nei giorni soggetti alla proibizione della chiesa non sono da equipararsi a quelli che sono scusati dal digiuno per ragione di età o di fatica, si è che questi ultimi possono usare dei cibi proibiti in forza soltanto dell' Indulto, it quale può subire minori o maggiori limitazioni; mentre gl' infermi possono usare dei cibi vietati secondo lo stato loro di salute, ed il giudizio del Medico. Cosìp. e.in alcuni giorni l' Indulto potrebbe non ammettere il condimento di grasso, e in tal caso chi è dispensato dal digiuno per ragione di età o di fatica deve astenersi dal condimento anzidetto; ma l' infermo anche nei giorni eccettuati può mangiar di grasso, se così esigge lo stato di sua salute. Una tale spiegazioneparmi possa servirle a togliere le incertezze che mi accennò nell' anzidetta sua. Roma, 8 Marzo 1864.Al. Card. Barnabo, Prefetto.A. Capalti, Segretario.

Letter of the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda to the Bishop of Southwark, explaining the foregoing answer.

From your letter of February 19th, 1864, I gather that you would wish to know the reason why the S. P. replied on the 27th of May, 1863,Non aequipararito this question: An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris, aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut istis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?

After having made due inquiry, I am now enabled to state the reason why the sick are not, in respect of the quality of food on days subject to the prohibition of the Church, on the same level with those who are excused from fasting by reason of age or labour; and it is, that the latter may eat such prohibited food as the Indult permits, solely in force of the Lenten Indult, which may vary in its limitations or dispensations from year to year; whereas the sick may eat prohibited food according to their state of health and the judgment of their doctor. Thus,e.g., on some days the Lenten Indult may perchance not allow lard to be used as a condiment, and on such days persons dispensed from the fast on account of age or labour must abstain from using it as a condiment, whilst a sick person may eat meat even on the excepted days if his health requires it. I think this explanation will help you to put an end to the doubts described in your letter.

Original.

Dalla sua lettera del 9 Febbrajo p.p. ho potuto rilevare che VS. gradirebbe di conoscer la ragione per cui al dubbio:An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut illis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?la S. Penitenzieria abbia risposto in data del 27 maggio 1863,Non aequiparari. Ora avendo preso in proposito le notizie opportune, sono in caso di significarle, che la ragione per cui gl' infermi riguardo alla qualità dei cibi nei giorni soggetti alla proibizione della chiesa non sono da equipararsi a quelli che sono scusati dal digiuno per ragione di età o di fatica, si è che questi ultimi possono usare dei cibi proibiti in forza soltanto dell' Indulto, it quale può subire minori o maggiori limitazioni; mentre gl' infermi possono usare dei cibi vietati secondo lo stato loro di salute, ed il giudizio del Medico. Cosìp. e.in alcuni giorni l' Indulto potrebbe non ammettere il condimento di grasso, e in tal caso chi è dispensato dal digiuno per ragione di età o di fatica deve astenersi dal condimento anzidetto; ma l' infermo anche nei giorni eccettuati può mangiar di grasso, se così esigge lo stato di sua salute. Una tale spiegazioneparmi possa servirle a togliere le incertezze che mi accennò nell' anzidetta sua. Roma, 8 Marzo 1864.

Al. Card. Barnabo, Prefetto.A. Capalti, Segretario.

Eminentissime ac Reverendissime Domine,Inter multiplices calamitates, quibus Ecclesia Dei luctuosis hisce temporibus undique premitur, recensenda profecto est pravorum librorum colluvies universum pene orbem inundans, qua per nefarios ac perditos homines divina Christi Religio, quae ab omnibus in honore est habenda, despicitur, boni mores, incautæ praesertim juventutis penitus labefactantur, et socialis quoque consuetudinis jura et ordo susdeque vertitur, et omnimode perturbatur. Neque ut vetus ipsorum mos erat, id praestare tantum nituntur libris magno apparatu scientiae elaboratis, sed et parvis, qui minimi veneunt libellis, et per publicas, atque ad hoc confectas ephemerides, ut non litteratis modo et scientibus virus illud insinuent, sed rudioris ejusque et infimi populi fidem, simplicitatemque corrumpant.Qui autem super gregem Christi vigilias agunt legitimi Pastores, ut hanc perniciem a populis sibi commissis avertant ad Sacram Indicis Congregationem quoscumque ex iis libris de more deferunt zelo adlaborantes, ut Romanae Sedis habito judicio, et proscriptione a vetita lectione talium librorum fideles deterreant. Neque iis difficilem se praebuit, et praebet S. Congregatio, quae quotidianam operam studiumque impendit, ut officio sibi a Romanis Pontificibus demandato satisfaciat. Quia tamen ex toto Christiano Orbe increbrescentibus denuntiationibus praegravatur, non id praestare perpetuo valet, ut promptum et expeditum super quavis causa ferat judicium: ex quo fit, ut aliquando serotina nimis sit provisio, et inefficax remedium, cum jam ex lectione istorum librorum enormia damna processere.Ad hoc incommodum avertendum non semel Romani Pontifices prospexerunt, et ut aliarum aetatum exempla taceamus, aevo nostro per S. M. Leonem XII. Mandatum editum est, sub die 26 Martii 1825, ad calcem Regularum Indicis insertum, et hisce litteris adjunctum, vi cujus Ordinariis locorum praecipitur, ut libros omnes noxios in sua dioecesi editos, vel diffusos, propria auctoritate proscribere, et e manibus fidelium avellere studeant.Cum autem hujus Apostolici Mandati provida constitutio praesentibus fidelium necessitatibus, et tuendae doctrinae morumque incolumitati optime respondeat, Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio Papae IX. placuit ejus memoriam esse recolendam, tenorem iterum vulgandumet ab Ordinariis locorum observantiam exigendam, quod excitatoriis hisce nostris litteris, nomine et auctoritate Apostolicae Sedis sollicite praestamus. Queis si debita obedientia respondeat (sicuti pro certo habemus), gravissima mala removentur in iis praesertim dioecesibus, in quibus promptae coercitionis urgeat necessitas. Ne vero quis praetextu defectus jurisdictionis, aut alio quaesito colore Ordinariorum sententias et proscriptiones ausu temerario spernere, vel pro non latis habere praesumat, Eis Sanctitas Sua concessit, sicut Nomine et Auctoritate Ejus praesentibus conceditur, ut in hac re, etiam tamquam Apostolicae Sedis Delegati, contrariis quibuscumque non obstantibus, procedant.Ad Apostolicum autem Judicium ea deferantur opera vel scripta quae profundius examen exigant, vel in quibus ad salutarem effectum consequendum Supremae Auctoritatis sententia requiratur.Interim Tibi Eminentissime et Reverendissime Domine copiosa divinorum charismatum incrementa ex animo precamur, et ad pergrata quaeque officia nos paratissimos exhibemus.Datum Romae, die 24 Augusti 1864.Amplitudinis Tuae, Addictissimus,Ludovicus Cardinalis de Alteriis,S. Indicis Congregationis Praefectus.Locus ✠ Sigilli.Fr. Angelus Vincentius Modena Ord. Praed. Sacrae Indis. Congr. a Secretis.MANDATUM.S. M. Leonis XII. additum Decreto Sac. Congreg. Indicis, die Sabbati 26 Martii 1823.Sanctitas Sua mandavit in memoriam revocanda esse universis Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, aliisque in Ecclesiarum regimen praepositis ea quae in Regulis Indicis Sacrosanctae Synodi Tridentinae jussu editis atque in observationibus, Instructione, Additione, et generalibus Decretis Summorum Pontificum Clementis VIII., Alexandri VII. et Benedicti XVI., auctoritate ad pravos libros proscribendos, abolendosque Indici Librorum Prohibitorum praeposita sunt, ut nimirum, quia prorsus impossibile est, libros omnes noxios incessanter prodeuntes in Indicem referre, propria auctoritate illos e manibus Fidelium evellere studeant, ac per eos ipsimet fideles edoceantur quod pabuli genus sibi salutare, quod noxium ac mortiferum ducere debeant, ne ulla in eo suscipiendo capiantur specie, ac pervertantur illecebra.

Eminentissime ac Reverendissime Domine,

Inter multiplices calamitates, quibus Ecclesia Dei luctuosis hisce temporibus undique premitur, recensenda profecto est pravorum librorum colluvies universum pene orbem inundans, qua per nefarios ac perditos homines divina Christi Religio, quae ab omnibus in honore est habenda, despicitur, boni mores, incautæ praesertim juventutis penitus labefactantur, et socialis quoque consuetudinis jura et ordo susdeque vertitur, et omnimode perturbatur. Neque ut vetus ipsorum mos erat, id praestare tantum nituntur libris magno apparatu scientiae elaboratis, sed et parvis, qui minimi veneunt libellis, et per publicas, atque ad hoc confectas ephemerides, ut non litteratis modo et scientibus virus illud insinuent, sed rudioris ejusque et infimi populi fidem, simplicitatemque corrumpant.

Qui autem super gregem Christi vigilias agunt legitimi Pastores, ut hanc perniciem a populis sibi commissis avertant ad Sacram Indicis Congregationem quoscumque ex iis libris de more deferunt zelo adlaborantes, ut Romanae Sedis habito judicio, et proscriptione a vetita lectione talium librorum fideles deterreant. Neque iis difficilem se praebuit, et praebet S. Congregatio, quae quotidianam operam studiumque impendit, ut officio sibi a Romanis Pontificibus demandato satisfaciat. Quia tamen ex toto Christiano Orbe increbrescentibus denuntiationibus praegravatur, non id praestare perpetuo valet, ut promptum et expeditum super quavis causa ferat judicium: ex quo fit, ut aliquando serotina nimis sit provisio, et inefficax remedium, cum jam ex lectione istorum librorum enormia damna processere.

Ad hoc incommodum avertendum non semel Romani Pontifices prospexerunt, et ut aliarum aetatum exempla taceamus, aevo nostro per S. M. Leonem XII. Mandatum editum est, sub die 26 Martii 1825, ad calcem Regularum Indicis insertum, et hisce litteris adjunctum, vi cujus Ordinariis locorum praecipitur, ut libros omnes noxios in sua dioecesi editos, vel diffusos, propria auctoritate proscribere, et e manibus fidelium avellere studeant.

Cum autem hujus Apostolici Mandati provida constitutio praesentibus fidelium necessitatibus, et tuendae doctrinae morumque incolumitati optime respondeat, Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio Papae IX. placuit ejus memoriam esse recolendam, tenorem iterum vulgandumet ab Ordinariis locorum observantiam exigendam, quod excitatoriis hisce nostris litteris, nomine et auctoritate Apostolicae Sedis sollicite praestamus. Queis si debita obedientia respondeat (sicuti pro certo habemus), gravissima mala removentur in iis praesertim dioecesibus, in quibus promptae coercitionis urgeat necessitas. Ne vero quis praetextu defectus jurisdictionis, aut alio quaesito colore Ordinariorum sententias et proscriptiones ausu temerario spernere, vel pro non latis habere praesumat, Eis Sanctitas Sua concessit, sicut Nomine et Auctoritate Ejus praesentibus conceditur, ut in hac re, etiam tamquam Apostolicae Sedis Delegati, contrariis quibuscumque non obstantibus, procedant.

Ad Apostolicum autem Judicium ea deferantur opera vel scripta quae profundius examen exigant, vel in quibus ad salutarem effectum consequendum Supremae Auctoritatis sententia requiratur.

Interim Tibi Eminentissime et Reverendissime Domine copiosa divinorum charismatum incrementa ex animo precamur, et ad pergrata quaeque officia nos paratissimos exhibemus.

Datum Romae, die 24 Augusti 1864.Amplitudinis Tuae, Addictissimus,

Ludovicus Cardinalis de Alteriis,

S. Indicis Congregationis Praefectus.

Locus ✠ Sigilli.Fr. Angelus Vincentius Modena Ord. Praed. Sacrae Indis. Congr. a Secretis.

MANDATUM.

S. M. Leonis XII. additum Decreto Sac. Congreg. Indicis, die Sabbati 26 Martii 1823.

Sanctitas Sua mandavit in memoriam revocanda esse universis Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, aliisque in Ecclesiarum regimen praepositis ea quae in Regulis Indicis Sacrosanctae Synodi Tridentinae jussu editis atque in observationibus, Instructione, Additione, et generalibus Decretis Summorum Pontificum Clementis VIII., Alexandri VII. et Benedicti XVI., auctoritate ad pravos libros proscribendos, abolendosque Indici Librorum Prohibitorum praeposita sunt, ut nimirum, quia prorsus impossibile est, libros omnes noxios incessanter prodeuntes in Indicem referre, propria auctoritate illos e manibus Fidelium evellere studeant, ac per eos ipsimet fideles edoceantur quod pabuli genus sibi salutare, quod noxium ac mortiferum ducere debeant, ne ulla in eo suscipiendo capiantur specie, ac pervertantur illecebra.

Most priests will have observed that missals and breviaries differ with regard to the rite of the Feast of St. Andrew Avellino, some giving it as a double, others as a semi-double. The following decree settles the question:

Decretum Generale.Quum nonnulli Rmi. per orbem Ordinarii pluries exquisierint et modo a Sancta Sede requirantutrum quarto Idus Novembris in Ecclesia universali Festum S. Andreae Avellini Confessoris recoli debeat ritu duplici minori, quem praseferunt recentiores editiones Breviarii et Missalis Romani, Subscriptus Secretarius S. R. C. sui muneris esse duxit Ssmi. Domini Nostri Pii Papae IX. desuper exposcere oraculum. Sanctitas porro Sua clementer declaravit ut amodo festum S. Andreae Avellini Confessoris ab utroque clero Urbis et Orbis, ipsis non exclusis Sanctimonialibus, agatur ritu duplici minori quem obtinet in alma Urbe, et pluribus Dioecesibus; dummodo Rubricae serventur. Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscumque. Die 21 Januarii, 1864.

Decretum Generale.

Quum nonnulli Rmi. per orbem Ordinarii pluries exquisierint et modo a Sancta Sede requirantutrum quarto Idus Novembris in Ecclesia universali Festum S. Andreae Avellini Confessoris recoli debeat ritu duplici minori, quem praseferunt recentiores editiones Breviarii et Missalis Romani, Subscriptus Secretarius S. R. C. sui muneris esse duxit Ssmi. Domini Nostri Pii Papae IX. desuper exposcere oraculum. Sanctitas porro Sua clementer declaravit ut amodo festum S. Andreae Avellini Confessoris ab utroque clero Urbis et Orbis, ipsis non exclusis Sanctimonialibus, agatur ritu duplici minori quem obtinet in alma Urbe, et pluribus Dioecesibus; dummodo Rubricae serventur. Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscumque. Die 21 Januarii, 1864.

Benedictio Viae Ferreae et Curruum.℣. Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.℟. Qui fecit coelum et terram.℣. Dominus vobiscum.℟]. Et cum spiritu tuo.Oremus.Omnipotens sempiterne Deus qui omnia elementa ad tuam gloriam, utilitatemque hominum condidisti; dignare quaesumus hanc viam ferream, ejusque instrumenta bene✠dicere, et benigna semper tua providentia tueri; et dum famuli tui velociter properant in via, in lege tua ambulantes, et viam mandatorum tuorum currentes, ad coelestem patriam feliciter pervenire valeant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.℟. Amen.Oremus.Propitiare Domine Deus supplicationibus nostris, et bene✠dic currus istos dextera tua sancta; adjunge ad ipsos sanctos Angelos tuos ut omnes qui in eis vehentur, liberent et custodiant semper a periculis universis: et quemadmodum viro Æthiopi super currum suum sedenti et sacra eloquia legenti, per Apostolum tuum fidem et gratiam contulisti; ita famulis tuis viam salutis ostende, qui tua gratia adjuti, bonisque operibus jugiter intenti post omnes viae et vitae hujus varietates aeterna gaudia consequi mereantur per Christum Dominum nostrum.Amen.Deinde Sacerdos aspergat viam et currus aqua benedicta.

Benedictio Viae Ferreae et Curruum.

℣. Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.℟. Qui fecit coelum et terram.℣. Dominus vobiscum.℟]. Et cum spiritu tuo.

Oremus.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus qui omnia elementa ad tuam gloriam, utilitatemque hominum condidisti; dignare quaesumus hanc viam ferream, ejusque instrumenta bene✠dicere, et benigna semper tua providentia tueri; et dum famuli tui velociter properant in via, in lege tua ambulantes, et viam mandatorum tuorum currentes, ad coelestem patriam feliciter pervenire valeant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.

℟. Amen.

Oremus.

Propitiare Domine Deus supplicationibus nostris, et bene✠dic currus istos dextera tua sancta; adjunge ad ipsos sanctos Angelos tuos ut omnes qui in eis vehentur, liberent et custodiant semper a periculis universis: et quemadmodum viro Æthiopi super currum suum sedenti et sacra eloquia legenti, per Apostolum tuum fidem et gratiam contulisti; ita famulis tuis viam salutis ostende, qui tua gratia adjuti, bonisque operibus jugiter intenti post omnes viae et vitae hujus varietates aeterna gaudia consequi mereantur per Christum Dominum nostrum.

Amen.Deinde Sacerdos aspergat viam et currus aqua benedicta.

The minute attention which Biblical students have paid to the original Hebrew and to the Septuagint version, with a view to fix the genuine readings of the text, has hitherto not been given to the Vulgate. Not to speak of the labours of Mill, Kennicott, and others, the Italian priest, John Bernard De Rossi collated more than seven hundred MSS. of the Hebrew text; and in his private library at Parma, 712 such codices were brought together by his industry. Walton's Polyglot, the publications of Tischendorf, and the collections made by Cardinal Mai, have contributed much to establish with accuracy the text of the Septuagint. It remained for Father Vercellone to undertake, in our day, a similar task in favour of the Vulgate. His master, the learned Father Ungarelli, had already commenced the work, and between 1830 and 1845, had amassed a considerable amount of materials for a book on thevariae lectionesof the Vulgate. In 1845, shortly before his death, he confided these materials to his disciple, Father Vercellone, of whose erudition and critical judgment he had had so many proofs. To the old riches his master had brought forth from his storehouse, the scholar added new treasures of his own; and the result of his labours upon and among both, is to be found in the work under notice.

We shall now briefly state the method which the author has followed. As the basis of his researches, he has taken the Clementine edition of 1592, purified from typographical errors, according to the other Vatican editions of 1595 and 1598. The editors of the Clementine of 1592, did but correct the text of the Sixtine edition of 1590. From the documents belonging to the congregation appointed by Sixtus V. to edit the Vulgate in that year, it appears that the editors took as the foundation of their corrections the text of the folio edition published by the Dominican Father, John Hunter, in 1583. But as the Hunterian edition of 1583 is identical with the Louvain folio edition published by Hunter in 1547, it follows that the Louvain text of 1547 may be considered as the basis upon which all the subsequent Vatican corrections have been made.

To correct this text, Father Vercellone has directed his studies,and in the volumes before us the fruit of his labours has been given to the world. How arduous these labours have been, and what confidence we may feel in his selection of readings, will best be learned from an enumeration of the sources whence, with incredible pains, he has drawn the information required for the execution of his design. These sources may be classed under three heads: Vatican papers, MSS. codices, and printed books. As to the first class, Pius IX. has assisted Father Vercellone by placing at his disposal the treasures stored up in the Vatican archives. Hence, our author has been enabled to examine, 1º, the documents of the corrections proposed and adopted by the congregation appointed to edit the Vulgate under Saint Pius V. in 1569, which documents he has compared with the writings of Cardinal Serleto, who had a great share in making those corrections; 2º, the documents concerning the corrections proposed or adopted in a similar congregation, under Sixtus V. in 1588 and 1589; 3º, the Sixtine edition of 1590; 4º, notes of the corrections discussed in the congregations appointed under Gregory XIV. and Clement VIII. to free the Sixtine edition, from its many mistakes of the press; 5º, the readings proposed by the learned Angelo Rocca; 6º, the annotations of Cardinal Toleto, preserved in the Vatican; and 7º, the Clementine edition of 1592.

As to the MSS., our author has confined himself to a few, but these few are of the highest authority. Of the twenty consulted by him, the remarkable Florentine Codex of Monte Amiata is deservedly placed first. Saint Pius V. had caused the Benedictines of Florence to collate 12 codices, and the archivist of Monte Cassino to examine 24 others. The notes of both these undertakings are still in the Vatican, and have been of great assistance to Father Vercellone.

Of printed editions prior to the Clementine of 1590, the author has consulted more than 80, many of them the work of excellent critical scholars. To these are to be added liturgical books, for example, the works of the B. Cardinal Thomasi, the Mozarabic liturgy, edited by Cardinal Lorenzana, and the Roman liturgy. To these again we must add, the Latin Fathers, whose works give much valuable assistance in determining the text of the Vulgate. Finally, F. Vercellone has carefully studied the commentaries of Hesychius, Rodolphus, Bruno of Asti, and the publications of Cardinals Mai and Pitra. This is the labour of a life, and few indeed could be found with the qualities required to undertake it and bring it to a happy termination.

We shall now set before our readers a few specimens of the practical results of F. Vercellone's researches. The first volume treats of the various readings that occur in the Pentateuch; the second volume of those in the books of Josue, Judges, Ruth,and the four books of Kings. It is a well known fact that there are to be found in the Vulgate some additions (additamenta) which are wanting in the Hebrew text, and even in the best codices of St Jerome's version. These additions have been distributed by F. Vercellone in four classes: 1º, those found only in codices of no great antiquity; 2º, those found in old and accurate editions of the Vulgate; 3º, those allowed to stand in the Sixtine edition; 4º, those allowed to stand even in the Clementine. It must not be believed that the Vatican editors were ignorant of the character of these additions, or that they admitted them through carelessness; for, in their preface, they distinctly say, "Nonnulla quae mutanda videbantur, consulto immutata relicta sunt, ad offensionem populorum vitandam".... These additions found their way into the text, according to our author, from four sources; 1. most of them from the Greek version, or the Vetus Itala; 2. not a few from a double version made of a verse, and transcribed as if the translation of two distinct verses; 3. from marginal glosses; and, 4. lastly, from parallel passages in the Scripture.

In the first two books of Kings, the author discovers sixty-nine such additions. Of these, thirty have been allowed to remain in the Clementine, fifteen more in the Sixtine, and nine more in the early editions, making in all fifty-four, fifteen others being found in MSS. of no great antiquity. The fifteen in the Clementine which we daily use, are as follows:—I.Reg., iv. 1; v. 6, v. 9; viii. 18; ix. 25; x. i; xi. 1; xiii. 15; xiv. 22; xiv. 41; xv. 3; xv. 12-13; xvii. 36; xix. 21; xx. 15; xxi. 11; xxiii. 13-14; xxx. 15. II.Reg., i. 18; i. 26; iv. 5; v. 23; vi. 12; x. 19; xiii. 21; xiii. 27; xiv. 30; xv. 18; xv. 20.

A few of these examples will show the author's method of dealing with such additions. I.Reg., iv. 1, we read,Et factum est in diebus illis, convenerunt Philisthiim in pugnam, et egressus est Israel obviam Philisthiim in praelium et castrametatus est, etc. Now, the wordset factum est, etc., are additions; and upon an examination of MSS. and editions, the author traces them to the LXX. version (vol. ii. page 194).

In II.Reg., i. 26, we read: "Doleo super te frater mi Jonatha decore nimis et amabilis super amorem mulierum.Sicut mater unicum amat filium suum ita ego te diligebam." The wordssicut mater unicum, etc., are wanting both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, and are probably a marginal gloss, inserted in the text through the ignorance of copyists. They are an explanation of the phrase, super amorem mulierum, as our author shows at page 322.

We need not say any more to show how important is the addition to our Catholic Biblical literature made by F. Vercellone.

Any new work by Father Perrone is sure to be received with respect and attention. The assailant, whose attack on the historical truth of St. Peter's journey to Rome is refuted in this book, is the author of an anonymous treatise published at Turin in 1861, entitledThe historical impossibility of St. Peter's journey to Rome demonstrated, by substituting the true for the false tradition. In an introduction, headed "The Protestants in Italy", Father Perrone laments the great mischief they have done to his country, and at the same time expresses his hopes that their attempts at proselytism will end in failure. He commences by an examination of the statements made by his adversary, to the effect that even Catholic writers of the highest authority had denied St. Peter's presence in Rome, that it is proved from the sacred Scriptures that St. Peter could not have come to Rome either in the time of Claudius or in that of Nero, and that, therefore, he could not have been there at all. In reply, F. Perrone proves that no Catholic author has ever denied St. Peter's journey to Rome; that we neither can nor ought to expect from Sacred Scripture a history of the journey in question, but only a proof that it was possible; and that, because the precise year of the event is not known, it does not follow that the event itself could never have taken place. He then proceeds to develope the arguments which prove the Prince of the Apostles to have been at Rome. 1º, from the writers of the first three centuries, and then from those of the fourth; 2º, from the monuments existing at Rome, sarcophagi, figured glasses from the Catacombs (one of which he illustrates at great length), inscriptions, and spots ever held sacred at Rome to the memory of St. Peter; 3º, from the pilgrimages made to his shrine by Christians from every portion of the Church during the first three centuries; and 4º, from the catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs drawn up by writers of the early ages. In the next two chapters he defends the authority of several of the fathers from the ignorant and malicious misrepresentations of his adversary, and crowns the work by reprinting at the end of his volume a dissertation delivered by him some years ago in one of the Roman academies, in which he proves that "the love and the hatred men show to Rome are two consequences of the presence, the episcopate, and the martyrdom of St. Peter in the Eternal City".

Although this book is not of recent publication, we feel it a kind of duty to bring it under the notice of the clergy of this country. The prelate who wrote it expressed to us his earnest desire that it might be translated for the use of the Catholics of Ireland, for whom he ever professed warm esteem and admiration. Indeed, we have very few books in which the question of vocations to the ecclesiastical or religious life is treated with such accuracy and solidity as in the Rules of Monsignor Malou. On the other hand, vocations are, through the grace of God, so abundant in Ireland, that there is hardly any priest, having care of souls, who must not have felt, at times, the want of some help to enable him to determine with confidence the state of life to which some youthful member of his flock may have been called. Such a guide he may find in the book under notice. Chapter i. treats of the nature of a state of life, and limits the number of such states to four, viz., the priesthood, the religious state, matrimony, and celibacy in the world. The second chapter examines the nature of a vocation to a state of life, and how far it imposes an obligation. Mgr. Malou thus defines a vocation: "A disposition of Divine Providence, which prepares, invites, and sometimes morally obliges, a Christian soul to embrace one state of life in preference to another; which disposition is ordinarily manifested in the qualities, the sentiments, and the position of the person called". Chapter iii. shows the necessity of Christian deliberation before making a choice of a state of life. Chapter iv. deals with the conditions requisite for a good deliberation, paragraphs being devoted respectively to interior conditions, to exterior conditions, and to the method of proceeding in the deliberation. The vocation to the ecclesiastical state is the subject of the fifth chapter, in which is shown that this vocation comes from God in a special manner, and that it is at once a great honour and a great benefit. The signs of vocation are detailed in the seventh, and the signs of non-vocation in the ninth chapters; in the tenth, the motives and the duty of following this vocation. The religious state, its origin, its end, its nature, and its properties; the different religious orders to which a person may be called; the vocation to the religious state; its principal signs; the deliberation required before adopting it are the subjects of the next five chapters. The sixteenth and last chapter discusses the question of vocation tothe foreign missions, considered with respect to its motives, the qualities it demands, and the precautions which should be taken in carrying it into effect. This is the substance of the entire treatise; and for accuracy of doctrine, clearness of style, unction of Catholic spirit, it is worthy of its important subject and of its author.

Back to Index Next