Chapter D: O. M

EUGENIO MATTHEI, ARCHIEPISCOPO DUBLINENSI,
DOCTRINAE CLARITATE NATALIUM SPLENDORE,
FIDE IN DEUM PIETATE IN PATRIAM SINGULARI
QUI POSTQUAM SOLLICITI PASTORIS,
DIUTURNO AC DIFFICILI TEMPORE IN HIBERNIA,
NUMEROS OMNES ADIMPLESSET,
SUB GREGORIO XV., ROMAM VENIT,
UBI AB OPTIMO PONTIFICE BENIGNE HABITUS,
DUM PATRIAE SUAE NEGOTIA PROMOVERET,
EXTREMUM DIEM CLAUSIT KAL. SEPT. 1623.

"Thus, as Dr. Matthews was closely allied by blood with the
families of Tyrone and Tyrconnel; as he in youth shared with them
the perils of the Catholic camp; as, when bishop of Clogher, he
enjoyed with them the hospitality of the great pontiff, Paul V.,
in the Salviati Palace, Rome; so was he destined to be united
with them in death, and to repose with them beneath the shadow
of St. Peter's dome, amidst the sanctuaries and shrines of the
Eternal City. We cannot better conclude than with the words of
the Four Masters, when registering the death of Hugh O'Neil:
'Although he died far distant from Armagh, the burial place of
his ancestors, it was a manifestation that God was pleased with
his life; for the place in which God granted him to be buried
was Rome, the capital of the Christians'".

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

In the last number of the _Record_ we laid down some rules for the convenience and guidance of the clergy in determining what mass is to be said on the occasion of marriage. We did not, however, point out the cases in which the nuptial benediction cannot be given, and when the mass pro sponso et sponsa cannot be said. The Roman Ritual has the following words:--"Caveat etiam parochus ne quando conjuges in primis nuptiis benedictionem acceperint, eos in secundis benedicat, sive mulier sive etiam vir ad secundas transeat. Sed ubi ea viget consuetudo ut si mulier nemini unquam nupserit, etiamsi vir aliam uxorem habuerit, nuptiae benedicantur, ea servanda est. Sed viduae nuptias non benedicat, etiamsi ejus vir nunquam uxorem duxerit". It is clear from these words that the nuptial benediction is not to be given, nor is the mass pro sponso et sponsa, to be said, in case a widow is to be married.

This will appear still more evident from two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites bearing on this subject:--

No. 4150.--Quaer. 4º "Si mulier esset vidua debetne omitti missa pro sponso et sponsa et omittendae sunt benedictiones infra eam descriptae post orationem Dominicam et Ite missa est?"

Ad. 4.--"Si mulier est vidua non solum debet omitti benedictio nuptiarum, sed etiam, missa propria pro sponso et sponsa. Die 3 Martii, 1761".

And again on the 31st of August, 1839, the following questions were answered:--

1. Quando nuptiae celebrantur tempore Adventus vel Quadragesimae debetne fieri commemoratio missae pro sponso et sponsa per Collectam Secretam, et Post communionem?

2. Licetne recitare supra sponsos preces seu orationes in missali positas post orationem Dominicam et Ite missa est?

3. Quando praedictae orationes non sunt recitatae in missa nuptiarum, debentne recitari extra missam elapso tempore prohibito?

Quae singula dubia sedulo de more perpendentes Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi patres sacris tuendis Ritibus praepositi in ordinario Coetu ad Quirinale subsignata die coadunati, auditaque fideli relatione ab infrascripto secretario facta respondendum censuerunt: serventur Rubricae Missalis ac generalia memorata Decreta quibus edicitur ut quoniam temporibus ab Ecclesia vetitis, locum haberi nequit solemnis benedictio nuptiarum, ita pariter inhibetur commemoratio pro sponso et sponsa in Missa occurrente neque orationes resumendae extra missam tempore prohibito jam elapso.

Atque ita rescripserunt, declararunt ac servandum omnino mandarunt. Die 31 Augusti, 1839.

We shall now proceed to answer other questions which were some time since sent to us by a much respected and zealous clergyman in connexion with the administration of marriage.

1. In what part of the church are the spouses to take their places? are they to stand or kneel during the ceremony?

2. Is the surname to be repeated in the ceremony?

3. Is the ring to be put from finger to finger or on the ring finger at once, as laid down in Roman Ritual?

4. How much of the Ritus Pontificalis of marriage ought a priest to adopt? for instance can he use a cope?

5. Is a lighted candle, and how many, to be used at the marriage ceremony, or in blessing holy water, etc.?

In answer to the first question, we beg to say that the Roman Ritual simply says: "Matrimonium in Ecclesia maxima celebrari decet". It was quite unnecessary to say more, inasmuch as the Ritual lays down that the spouses are to assist at mass and to approach Holy Communion. When these particulars are observed, the spouses should, of course, occupy a place near the altar, and even in case there should be no mass, it appears to us quite proper that they should contract marriage at the altar, while we cannot point out the precise place, as the Rubrics of the Ritual do not enter into further details. With regard to the kneeling, the Ritual says nothing: we think, however, that the practice of allowing them to stand while expressing their mutual consent, and kneeling down at the words _Ego conjungo vos_, etc., may safely be followed. This practice is indicated in some Rituals: "Ac primo sponsum interreget stantem ad dextram mulieris", and in the Roman Pontifical, "Muliere ad sinistram viri stante". The Roman Ritual does not mention these details.

It is not at all necessary to repeat the surname in the ceremony. Baruffaldi, in his "Commentaria ad Rituale Romanum", has the following words: "Post nomen non utique est necessarium addere cognomen gentilitium quia per verba illa _hic praesentem_ satis indicatur quinam sit illa de quo agitur. Nihilominus ad abundantiam nonnulli solent addere quoque cognomen prosapiae et nomina parentum illorum qui contrahunt ad evitandum omnem errorem circa personam". Baruffaldi, _de Matrimonio_, tit. xlii. The Roman Ritual certainly appears to state that the ring is to be placed on the ring finger at once, and so does the Pontifical; however, it is to be remembered that other Rituals do not contradict this, but they would appear rather to explain the manner of observing what is prescribed in the Roman Ritual by moving it from finger to finger, and reciting the words at the same time as pointed out in the Ritual. Our respected correspondent, when proposing these questions for the very laudable purpose of securing uniformity of practice in so important a matter, must recollect the words of the Roman Ritual: "Caeterum si quae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis in celebrando matrimonii sacramento utantur, eas sancta Tridentina synodus optat retineri". On which words Baruffaldi, commenting, says: "Cum Ecclesia Catholica delere introductas et per longa saecula approbatas caeremonias, impossibile iudicaverit, illas quodammodo retineri laudavit, optavitque dummodo sint vere laudabiles et merae consuetudines, non autem ritus sacramentales sacramentum deformantes". Hence, we should not be surprised if in different countries and even in different districts a diversity of practice exist in regard to details, "quae substantiam sacramenti non laedunt nec pietatem offendunt". At the same time, however, it is but right that we should observe the rubrics of the Ritual, as, the more accurate we are in doing so, the greater will be the uniformity of practice, which is most desirable.

The principles which we have laid down will enable us to answer question 4. We should not consider the pastor deserving of censure for using a cope on a very solemn occasion, though undoubtedly there is no mention made of it in the Ritual, whereas it is prescribed in the Pontifical for a Bishop; and, as a direct answer, we should be disposed to state that a priest may adopt as much of the Ritus Pontificalis as is consistent with the due observance of the Ritual. The priest ought to be guided by the Ritual, while he leaves to the bishop the observance of the Ritus Pontificalis as laid down in the Roman Pontifical.

We now proceed to answer the fifth and last question. The Rubrics require lighted candles in the blessing of the ashes, palms, and candles; but in the blessings referred to in the proposed question, the use of candles is not prescribed, though we think it would be very becoming to have lighted candles at a marriage even when there is no mass.

Nothing, however, is better calculated to edify and to impress the faithful with a sense of the dignity and character of the great sacrament, as it is called by St. Paul, in Christ and in the Church, than the holy sacrifice of the Mass; and hence the Holy Catholic Church, anxious to invest it with all possible solemnity, exhorts the married couple to prepare for its reception by confession and communion, and has appointed a special mass for the purpose; and accordingly we find that here in Ireland, even in the times of persecution, the nuptial benediction and mass were prescribed by Dr. Matthews, Archbishop of Dublin, and his suffragans, in a provincial synod at Kilkenny, in the year 1614. "Si quando contigerit, parochum aliquos matrimonialiter conjungere, non habita tunc opportunitate impertiendi illis nuptialem benedictionem, quae infra missarum solemnia dari solet, moneat verbis gravibus contrahentes, ne ante hujusmodi a se ipso, et non alio sacerdote, acceptam benedictionem, in eadem domo cohabitent, et multo minus, matrimonium consummare praesumant. Similiter sponsos de futuro moneat, ut a nimia familiarite caveant, et ne se ullatenus carnaliter cognoscant, donec matrimonium de praesenti contraxerint, et benedictionem nuptialem (prout dictum est) obtinuerint"--(_Vide_ Dr. Moran's _History of the Archbishops of Dublin_, vol. i. p. 453, which contains all the statutes of that synod). With the same view we thought it well to publish some of the decrees having reference to the nuptial mass, by which it is easily seen how the dignity of this sacrament has been upheld by the Church, while the system introduced by governments in other countries would have the effect of degrading it to the level of a mere civil contract, and depriving it of the blessing and sanction of heaven. If we shall have succeeded in an humble way in showing the dignity of the marriage contract by the wise rules and discipline established by the Catholic Church, we will have performed a work agreeable, we are sure, to the readers of the _Record_, and attained at least one of the objects aimed at by its conductors.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[The Editors are not responsible for the statements made by correspondents.]

_To the Editors of the Record._

REVEREND GENTLEMEN,

Since you have been kind enough to set aside a portion of the
_Record_ for the insertion of correspondence upon theological and
liturgical subjects, I trust that you will allow me to offer a few
remarks upon a letter which has appeared in the number[21] for the
present month, regarding the method of applying for dispensations
_in gradu inaequali consanguinitatis_. Your correspondent justly
considers that the question is of great importance, and hence
it may be well to call attention to some inaccuracies which,
if uncorrected, would neutralize the good effects of his "hint
to fellow-labourers in the vineyard".

1. The question of which Gury treats at page 594, is the necessity
of mentioning the gradus _propior_, and not the gradus _remotior_,
as stated in your correspondent's letter.

2. According to the opinion now almost universally received,
this necessity does not exist--so far as the _validity_ of the
dispensation is concerned--except when the gradus propior is the
gradus _primus_, which should be always mentioned, whether it
concurs with the second, third, or fourth; and your correspondent
is quite correct in stating that a misapprehension of the
meaning of a constitution of Benedict XIV. has led St. Liguori
to adopt an opinion completely at variance with this. But it
is manifest that the Saint's mistake has not been "inserted in
the very latest editions of the works on moral theology most in
use at present--such as those of Gury and Scavini"; for, while
St. Liguori _extends_ the necessity to all those cases in which
the first _or second_ degree concurs with another more remote
(_Theol. Mor._, lib., n. 1136), Gury falls into the opposite
extreme by maintaining that in consanguinitate inaequali, even
the _first_ degree need not be mentioned, except when it concurs
with the _second_ (Gury, _Theol. Moralis_, 13th ed., p. 594,
n. 867, _not_ 876.)

3. Scavini certainly copied in the earliest editions of his work
the opinion of St. Liguori; but the mistake has been long since
corrected. In the Paris Edition of 1855, he says: "Declaravit
Benedictus XIV., Brevi _Etsi_, conjugium ... illicitum esse
sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit _primi_ gradus
consanguinitatis vel affinitatis, scilicet mixti cum caeteris
_usque ad quartum_ gradum"--t. 4, p. 503. I have examined several
editions which were published since the one from which I have
quoted, and in all these the same view is laid down.

4. Your correspondent states that the opinion of Gury was
adopted by Scavini. I think this statement is hardly correct.
Most certainly it is not correct with reference to any of the
editions of Scavini's works which are commonly used in Ireland.

5. In a late edition of Gury's work, which, I suppose, has not
yet fallen under the notice of your correspondent, the error in
n. 867 is corrected by the following note: "Invalidatur in genere,
dispensatio _si reticetur primus gradus_ ... pro foro interno,
expressio propioris gradus non requiritur nisi sit primus".
_Editio tertia Germanica_ n. 867, p. 465.

6. Cardinal Gousset undoubtedly followed the view of St. Liguori;
but the reference to his work should be t. 2, n. 865, _not_
n. 1136.

7. In conclusion, I may remark that the theory suggested by your
correspondent as a possible explanation of St. Liguori's mistake,
does not appear to be admissible. The constitution _Etsi Matr._
had reference indeed to a case in which two impediments existed;
and the Pope declared that the marriage was invalid, because no
mention had been made of the _double_ impediment in the petition
for the dispensation. He explained, however, at some length
that the invalidity was caused by this defect alone, and that
no difficulty would have arisen in case there had been but
one impediment--relationship in the third and fourth degrees,
although the dispensation had been granted for the fourth without
any mention of the third.

Amongst other reasons for this decision, he speaks of the
common consent of theologians, who agree that in the case of
a relationship in the _third_ and _fourth_ degrees, it is not
necessary to mention the _gradus propinquior_ when seeking the
dispensation.

There can be no doubt that it was this passage which induced
St. Liguori to conclude that if the gradus propinquior were the
_first_ or _second_, it should be expressed in the petition.

He could hardly have committed such a mistake as to suppose that
_duplex_ impedimentum, meant an impediment of consanguinity in
the _second degree_. It is evident that he did not fall into this
error, for immediately afterwards, when discussing the question
regarding a _duplex impedimentum_ (n. 1138), he adopts the opinion
of Benedict XIV. on this subject, quoting the same constitution,
_Etsi_, in support of his view.

I remain, Reverend Gentlemen, respectfully yours,

DUBLINENSIS.

May 7th, 1865.

DOCUMENTS.

DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF PROPAGANDA.

I.

DECRETUM.

_S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide habitae die 12 Aprilis, 1802._

Quum nomine Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, et Vicariorum Apostolicorum M. Britanniae S. Congregationi de Propaganda Fide proposita fuerint tria quaesita, nempe:

I. An Episcopi, Archiepiscopi, et Vicarii Apostolici M. Britanniae, qui facultatem habent a S. Sede Apostolica dispensandi cum Catholicis in nonnullis impedimentis matrimonialibus, iis facultatibus valide et licite uti possint in matrimoniis mixtis, nempe dispensandi cum parte Catholica, quae parti acatholicae nubere velit.

II. An Episcopi Hiberniae, qui ex jurejurando in consecratione praestito debent SS. Apostolorum limina singulis decenniis visitare, et status propriae Dioecesis relationem presentare, initium decennii sumere debeant a die propriae consecrationis, an primum decennium numerare a data[22] constitutionis s. Memoriae Sixti V. quae incipit, "_Romanus Pontifex_" et sic deinceps.

III. An dispensatio a SS. liminum visitatione, a Summo Pontifice Pio VI., die 7 Maji 1798 Episcopis et Archiepiscopis Hiberniae impertita cum clausula "_quamdiu praesentes rerum circumstantiae perduraverint_", ad praesens cessaverit.

Eminentissimi Patres, referente R. D. P. Dominico Coppola, Archiepiscopo Myrensi secretario respondendum esse censuerunt.

Ad I. Negative; et supplicandum esse Sanctissimo pro sanatione in radice omnium matrimoniorum, quae cum hujusmodi dispensationibus ad haec usque tempora contracta sunt: Iisque dandam esse instructionem anni 1774 ad Episcopum Culmensem transmissam.

Ad II. Incipiendum esse primum decennium a die constitutionis summi Pontificis Sixti V. quae incipit "_Romanus Pontifex_". Si vero Episcopi circa ultimum decennii annum consecrati visitationem explere ac relationem status suae Dioecesis transmittere nequeant, ab Apostolica S. Sede prorogationem expostulent.

Ad III. Praedictam dispensationem cessasse. Datum Romae ex AEdibus dictae S. Congregationis die 20 Octobris 1802.

S. CARDINALIS BORGIA, Praefectus.

DOMINICUS, Archiepiscopus Myrensis, Secretarius.

LOCO [+] SIGILLI.

(_Copia vera, Richardus Armacanus_).

II.

TWO DECREES OF THE PROPAGANDA, CONFERRING THE PARISH OF COOLOCK AND THE PREBEND OF WICKLOW ON THE LATE MOST REV. DR. MURRAY, ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN.

We publish those decrees to preserve them from the fate of many other important documents. Being connected with the history of one of the most illustrious prelates of the diocese of Dublin, they possess a peculiar value and interest. The benefices referred to had devolved to the Holy See, because Dr. Ryan, the previous incumbent, had been promoted to the episcopal rank.

DECRETUM

_Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide._

Quum per promotionem R. D. Patritii Ryan ad officium Coadjutoris in Ecclesia Fernensi in Hibernia apud Sedem Apostolicam vacaverit Parochialis Ecclesia de Coolock, Dioecesis Dublinensis cum adnexis, quam dictus Patritius in titulum obtinebat, Sacra Congregatio ex potestate sibi facta a Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio Divina Providentia P.P. VII. Lutetiae Parisiorum, Parochialem Ecclesiam praefatam cum ei adnexis benigne contulit Reverendo Domino Danieli Murray, Presbytero probitate doctrina, ac zelo a R. P. D. Archiepiscopo Dublinensi commendato.

Datum Romae ex AEdibus dictae Sacrae Congregationis die 26 Januarii 1805.

A. CARD. DUGNANI Pro-Praef.

Dominicus Archiepiscopus MYREN. Secretarius.

DECRETUM

_Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide._

_Die 11 Martii 1805._

Quum per promotionem R. D. Patritii Ryan ad officium Coadjutoris Ecclesiae Fernensis in Hibernia vacaverit et adhuc vacet Canonicatus, sive Praebenda de Wicklow, quam dictus Patritius obtinebat in Majori Ecclesia Dublinensi, Sacra Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi tributis a Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio, Divina Providentia P.P. VII. durante ejus absentia ab Urbe, dictum Canonicatum, sive Praebendam de Wicklow cum omnibus juribus, et pertinentiis suis benigne contulit R. D. Danieli Murray Presbytere Saeculari viro doctrina, ac Religionis zelo, caeterisque virtutibus a R. P. D. Archiepiscopo Dublinensi specialiter commendato.

A. CARD. DUGNANI Pro-Praef.

Dominicus Archiepiscopus MYREN. Secretarius.

III.

LETTER OF THE IRISH BISHOPS TO THE PROPAGANDA, 1801.

_Dublino 19 Novembre 1801._

I Metropolitani e Vescovi d'Irlanda sotto descritti amministratori del Collegio di S. Patrizio adunati qui, letto il grazioso biglietto di Monsignore Secretario di Propaganda indirizzato al Padre M. Concanen sotto il di 7[23] Agosto prossimo passato, lo pregano d' umiliare loro profondissimo divoto rispetto e venerazione alla Santita di Nostro Signore, a cui professano la piu viva riconoscenza per la paterna sua sollicitudine ed attenzione ai loro interessi e doveri.

Quanto al consaputo piano ideato dal Governo Brittanico in supposto vantaggio della Ecclesiastica Gerarchia in Irlanda, Monsignore Segretario e gia informato dei loro Sentimenti dal dettagliato riscontro che ne diede L'Arcivescovo di Dublino all' Emo Signor Cardinale Borgia, Pro-Prefetto allora della S. Congregazione: Dichiarano ora che non adotteranno verun piano che non sia conforme alle massime inalterabili della nostra santa Religione ed ai diritti della S. Sede Apostolica, tenendo per nullo ed invalido qualunque piano Ecclesiastico che non sia dalla medesima autorizzato e confermato. Desiderano ardentemente che il plausibile sistema da loro finora osservato sia seguitato, ed asterranno scrupolosamente d' aver in mira qualunque loro proprio temporale vantaggio trattando col Governo Brittannico, a cui professano la piu disinteressata ubbedienza e gratitudine.

Presentemente non si parla dell' ideato progetto, ne si parlera prima della publicazione del nuovo Concordato tra la S. Sede ed il Governo Francese, a norma del quale in alcuni supposti articoli si regolera come se dice, anche questo Governo.

Intanto bramano vivissimamente i Metropolitani e Vescovi d'Irlanda dalla paterna sollicitudine e saviezza del Santo Padre quei maggiori lumi che stimera, opportuni per schiarire questo scabroso affare e regolare la loro condotta nel maneggiarlo nelle critiche circostanze in cui si ritrovano per l' infelicita dei tempi presenti.

L' Arcivescovo di Dublino lo Scrivente nell' eseguire i voleri dei Metropolitani e Vescovi sotto descritti communicando questi loro sentimenti, si rassegna colla piu verace e distinta Stima, etc.