Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV
promulgated on July 26, 1755.
To Missionaries Assigned to the Orient.
Beloved Sons, We give You Greeting and
Our Apostolic Blessing.
There has been brought to the
Cardinals, who are in charge of the Propagation of the Faith, the letter of a
certain priest who was assigned to conduct holy missions in the city of
Balsera. This city, commonly called Bassora, is about fifteen days' journey
from Babylon, a city well-known for the dealings of merchants. In his letter,
he informed the Cardinals that many Catholics of the Oriental rite, Armenians
or Syrians, live in that city. Because they have no temple of their own, they
come to the church of the Latin missionaries where their priests offer masses
and perform other sacred ceremonies in accordance with their own rite. But lay
people attend these ceremonies and receive the sacraments from the priests. So
he inquired whether these Armenians and Syrians should observe their own
Catholic rite or whether, to avoid different practices in a church which
Latins also attend, it would be more appropriate that the Armenians and
Syrians should abandon their ancient calendar and accept the new one to
establish the dates of Easter and movable feastdays. He further inquired
whether if the observance of the new calendar were decreed for the Armenians
and Syrians of Balsera, it should also be imposed on other orientals who,
because their own church is small, generally come to the church of the Latins
for their sacred functions.
Abstinence from Fish
2. Furthermore, this missionary also
reported that although abstinence from fish is prescribed on fast days for
Armenians and Syrian Catholics, many of them do not observe this regulation.
This is not from any contempt, but in part from natural weakness and in part
from seeing that Latin Catholics have a different custom. Accordingly, he
suggested that it would be appropriate to give missionaries the power of
allowing particular individuals to eat fish in a season of fasting, provided
that this gives rise to no scandal and that they are obliged to perform some
other work of piety in place of abstaining from fish.
Decree Forbidding Dispensations
3. These questions were, as We have
said, submitted by this missionary to the Congregation for the Propagation of
the Faith. As is customary, it sent them to the Congregation of General
Inquisition. This Congregation met in Our presence on March 13. The Cardinals
Inquisitor unanimously answered that "no innovations were to be made." We
confirmed this decision in conformity with a former decree of the Congregation
for the Propagation of the Faith published on January 31, 1702; it has
subsequently been renewed and confirmed several times. That decree reads as
follows: "At the instance of its Secretary, R.P.D. Carolus Augustinus Fabronus,
the Sacred Congregation has commanded that it be ordered, and by the present
decree it is so ordered, that each and every missionary and prefect of
Apostolic missions should not dare in future, in any circumstance or under any
pretext, to give a dispensation to Catholics of any oriental nation in matters
of fasts, prayers, ceremonies, and suchlike from the prescriptions of their
own national rite which are approved by the Holy and Apostolic See. Moreover,
the Sacred Congregation has decided that it neither has been nor is permitted
for those Catholics to abandon in any respect the custom and observance of
their own rite which has likewise been approved by the Holy Roman Church. The
complete and straightforward observance of this decree, renewed and confirmed
by each and every prefect and missionary, has been commanded by these most
eminent fathers." This decree, indeed, applies to Catholics of the Oriental
Church and to their rites which have been approved by the Apostolic See. As
everyone knows, the Oriental Church is composed of four rites-Greek, Armenian,
Syriac, and Coptic; all these rites are referred to by the single name of the
Greek or Oriental Church, just as the name of the Latin or Roman Church
signifies the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites, as well as the special
rites of different Regular Orders.
4. The meaning of the decree is too
clear to require any commentary. So the purpose of this encyclical letter is
to ensure that this law is known and understood by everyone and is thereupon
carried out with care. For it can be justly suspected that the missionary of
Balsera submitted his questions with no knowledge of the decrees which had
already been issued. We gather from many other indications that Latin
missionaries devote thought and care to destroying or at least weakening the
Oriental rite in the course of converting Orientals from the error of schism
to the unity of the Holy Catholic Religion; they induce Oriental Catholics to
embrace the Latin rite with the sole motivation of zealously spreading
religion and performing a good work pleasing to God. We have thought it
fitting for this reason (since We have set Our mind on writing) to treat as
briefly as possible in this encyclical letter the proper procedure in all
cases when Orientals are converted to the Catholic Religion. This procedure is
to be observed in the case of Oriental Catholics who live both in places where
there are no Latins and where Latin Catholics dwell together with Oriental
Catholics.
Oriental Church United With Roman
Church
5. Certainly, that man would have to be
declared utterly inexperienced in ecclesiastical history who did not know of
the mighty efforts of the Roman Pontiffs to bring the Orientals into unity
since the fatal schism of Photius; he laid hold of the See of Constantinople
when the lawful Patriarch St. Ignatius was forcefully ejected in the time of
Pope St. Nicholas I. Our Predecessor St. Leo IX sent his legates to
Constantinople to put an end to this schism, which, after almost two
centuries' respite, had been renewed by Michael Cerularius; but their efforts
came to nothing. Subsequently Urban II summoned the Greeks to the council of
Bari. They accomplished very little though, even though St. Anselm, Archbishop
of Canterbury, was fully engaged in working for unity between them and the
Roman Church and in revealing to them the errors of their ways by the light of
his teaching. At the Council of Lyons which Blessed Gregory X convened, the
emperor Michael Palaeologus and the Greek bishops accepted unity with the
Roman Church, but then changed their minds and abandoned it again. The Council
of Florence, in the pontificate of Eugenius IV, which was attended by John
Palaeologus and Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, together with the other
Oriental bishops, decreed union; everyone present accepted it. At the same
Council the churches of the Armenians and the Jacobites returned to obedience
to the Apostolic See. When Pope Eugenius left Florence for Rome, he received
an embassy from the king of the Ethiopians and restored the Syrians,
Chaldaeans, and Maronites to obedience to the Roman See. But as it is written
in St. Matthew's Gospel, chap. 13, the seed which fell on a rock produced no
fruit since it had no place to put down roots: "These are those who at once
receive the word of God with joy but do not have roots in themselves; when
tribulation and persecution come on account of the word, they stumble at
once." Thus, scarcely had Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus, like a new Photius,
tried to destroy the union by raising his voice against it, than all the
desired fruit immediately vanished.
6. That man too would betray his
ignorance of ecclesiastical history who did not know that the union with the
Orientals confirmed that they would accept the dogma of the procession of the
Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and add to the Creed the word
Filioque ("and from the Son"); that they would admit that both leavened and
unleavened bread was matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that they
would accept the dogma of purgatory, of the beatific vision and of the primacy
of the Roman Pontiff; in a word, that every care was taken to overthrow all
errors opposed to the Catholic faith. But there was never any question of
causing harm to the venerable Oriental rite. That man would be utterly
ignorant also of the present discipline of the Church who had not discovered
that the Roman Pontiffs, undeterred by past fruitless attempts, have always
intended to restore the Greeks to union and have always followed and still
follow the path We have explained just above. This can be clearly gathered
both from their words and from their deeds.
Leo IX Supported Greek Church in 11th
Century
7. In the eleventh century, several
Latin churches observing the Latin rite thrived in Constantinople, Alexandria,
and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem; just as in Rome, Greek churches performed
sacred ceremonies in the Greek rite. Michael Cerularius, the impious restorer
of the schism, commanded the closing of the Latin Churches. St. Leo IX,
however, did not respond in kind although he could readily have done so;
rather than closing the Greek churches in Rome, he desired them to remain
open. And so when he complained of the insult done to the Latins, he added:
"See how much more restrained, moderate, and kindly towards you the Roman
church is here! Although there are many Greek monasteries or churches, both
inside and outside Rome, none of these has yet been disturbed or forbidden to
follow the tradition of its fathers or its own custom; rather all of them are
advised and urged to observe it." (I Ep 9)
Thirteenth Century Support for Greek
Churches
8. At the start of the thirteenth
century the Latins gained control of Constantinople. Innocent III then decided
to establish a Latin Patriarch in that city with jurisdiction over Greeks as
well as Latins; but he still was careful to state openly that he did not want
any harm done to the Greek rites, excepting only those traditional customs
which endangered souls or were at variance with the honor of the Church. The
decretal of this pope, issued at the Fourth Lateran Council, is to be found
both in Harduin's Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. I, p. 22, and in the chapter
Licet, de Baptismo. "Although the Greeks have returned to obedience to the
Apostolic See in Our day, We desire them as greatly as We can in the Lord to
cherish and hold in honor their custom and rites, except for those customs
which give rise to danger for souls and detract from the honor of the Church,
for in these cases We neither should nor do We want to respect them." Later
Honorius III, the immediate successor of Innocent, used the same words in a
letter to the king of Cyprus who wanted two bishops in some cities in his
kingdom, a Latin bishop for the Latin inhabitants and a Greek bishop for the
Greeks living in the same district. This letter of Honorius is printed in the
Annals of Raynaldus, 1222, a. 5.
9. There are many documents of this
kind from the thirteenth century. For instance the letter of Innocent IV to
Daniel, King of Russia, praises the particular devotion of the king to the
Catholic Church and allows to be preserved in his kingdom rites which are not
at variance with the faith of the Catholic Church. He writes: "Therefore,
dearest son in Christ, We are moved by your prayer and grant by the authority
of this letter to the bishops and other priests of Russia permission to
consecrate leavened bread in accordance with their custom and to observe their
other rites which are not opposed to the Catholic faith held by the Church of
Rome." (Raynaldus, 1247, no. 29.) Such is the tenor, too, of the same Pope's
letter to Cardinal Otho of Tusculum, Legate of the Holy See on the Island of
Cyprus, whom he had entrusted with the authority to settle some disputes which
had arisen between Greeks and Latins: "But since some of the Greeks are at
last returning to their devotion to the Apostolic See, and obey it with
reverence and respect, We may and should tolerate and preserve their customs
and rites as far as God and their obedience to the Roman Church permits.
However, We ought not-nor do We wish to-yield to them in the slightest matter
which could produce danger for souls or lessen the honor of the Church" (in
veteri Bullario, vol. 1, no. 14, constitution Sub Catholicae). But in the same
letter after he laid down what the Greeks had to do, he listed the practices
which he thought they should be allowed to observe and ends with the following
words: "But on Our authority, order the aforesaid Archbishop of Nicosia
together with his Latin suffragans not to disturb or harass the Greeks
contrary to Our decision in these matters." The same Pope Innocent IV
appointed his confessor Laurentius Minorita as Apostolic Legate and gave him
full authority over all the Greeks who lived in the kingdom of Cyprus and the
patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as over the Jacobites,
Maronites and Nestorians. He commanded him especially to protect by his
authority all the Greeks from harassment from the Latins: "As regards the
Greeks of those regions, whatever their affiliation, We command you to protect
them by apostolic authority, and to prevent their being disturbed by acts of
violence or any harassment by fully correcting all wrongs and offenses done by
Latins and by strictly commanding the Latins to give up such acts for the
future" (Raynaldus, 1546, no. 30).
10. Alexander IV, the immediate
successor of Pope Innocent, observed that the desire of his predecessor had
not been achieved and that disorderly dissensions between Greek and Latin
bishops continued to break out in the kingdom of Cyprus. Accordingly he
commanded the Latin bishops to summon Greek clerics to their synods. But when
he declared that they were subject to the decrees of the synods, he added the
following condition: "(that they are) to accept and observe the statutes of
the Synods, provided that these statutes do not conflict with the Greek rites
which are not opposed to the Catholic faith and are tolerated by the Church of
Rome." Elias, Archbishop of Nicosia, followed this praiseworthy precedent in
1340 when he included this declaration in the decrees of his synod: "We do not
purpose by this decree to prevent Greek bishops and their subjects from
observing their own rites which are consonant with the Catholic faith, in
accordance with the arrangement proposed by Pope Alexander, and accepted by
both Greeks and Latins in the kingdom of Cyprus" (Labbe, Collectione, vol. 14,
p. 279, and vol. 15, p. 775, Venice edition).
11. The end of the thirteenth century
is marked by the Union of Greeks and Latins decreed at the General Council of
Lyons in the pontificate of Blessed Gregory X. Gregory sent to Michael
Palaeologus the confession of faith and the decree of union confirmed by the
Council which the eastern legates had sworn to, in order that the emperor
himself and the other Greek bishops should accept them. The emperor and the
Orientals performed all that was required, but they added the condition: "But
we ask of Your Greatness etc. to be allowed to preserve the rites which we
used before the schism since these rites are not opposed to the Faith or to
the divine commandments" (Harduin, Collectionis, vol. 8, p. 698). Although the
reply of Pope Gregory to this letter of the Orientals has not survived, it may
rightly be taken that he approved this condition since he believed that they
had firmly accepted the union. And of course Nicholas III, the successor of
Gregory, through the legates he sent to Constantinople, revealed his mind in
the following words: "As to the other Greek rites, however, the Roman Church
gladly proposes that the Greeks observe them to the full extent that God
allows and permits them to continue in those rites which in the decision of
the Apostolic See do not injure the integrity of the Catholic faith or detract
from the holy decrees of the Canons" (Raynaldus, 1278).
Fifteenth Century
12. For the fifteenth century, we will
mention only the union decreed at the council of Florence. Pope Eugenius
approved it and John Palaeologus accepted it with the proviso "that no changes
should be made in the Rites of our Church" (Harduin, Collectionis, vol. 9, p.
345). But since We do not intend to review in particular detail the actions of
the Roman pontiffs in subsequent centuries, We shall touch on several main
incidents which suggest clearly that while they tried zealously to correct the
misconceptions of the Orientals, at the same time they indicated that they
desired to preserve entire those rites used before the schism with the
approval of the Apostolic See. They never demanded that Orientals who wished
to be Catholic should embrace the Latin Rite.
Further Support
13. The Greek Manual, published at
Benevento, contains two Constitutions of Popes Leo X and Clement VII which
vigorously criticize Latins who abuse the Greeks for practices which the
Council of Florence permitted them: in particular that they may offer the
Sacrifice of the Mass with leavened bread, that they may take a wife before
receiving Holy Orders and keep their wife after Ordination, and that they may
offer the Eucharist under both species even to children. When Pius IV decreed
that Greeks living in the Dioceses of Latins should be subject to the Latin
bishops, he added that "by this decree, however, We do not purpose that the
Greeks themselves should be drawn away from their Greek rite, or that they
should be hindered in any way in other places by the local Ordinaries or
others" (veteris Bullarii, vol. 2, const. no. 75, Romanus Pontifex).
14. The annals of Gregory XIII, written
by Fr. Maffei and printed at Rome in 1742, relate several deeds of this pope
which aimed at restoring the Copts and Armenians to the Catholic faith, though
quite unsuccessfully. But of especial interest are his words concerning the
foundation of three colleges in Rome which he had established for the
education of Greek, Maronite, and Armenian students, in which he provided that
they should continue in their oriental rites (in novo Bullario, vol. 4, pt. 3,
const. 63, and pt. 4, const. 157 and 173).
A solemn union of the Ruthenians with
the Apostolic See was enacted in the time of Pope Clement VIII. The decree
prepared by the Ruthenian archbishops and bishops for establishing union
contains the following condition: "However, the ceremonies and rites of the
divine liturgy and holy sacraments shall be preserved and fully observed in
accordance with the custom of the oriental church; only those points shall be
corrected which are a hindrance to union; everything shall be done in the
ancient manner as they were long ago when the union was in existence.
Shortly afterwards a disturbance was
caused by a widespread rumor that the union had put an end to all the old
rites which the Ruthenians followed in the divine psalmody, the sacrifice of
the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, and other holy ceremonies.
Paul V in an apostolic brief written in 1615 and printed in the Greek Manual,
solemnly declared his will in the following words: "Provided that they are not
opposed to truth and the teaching of the Catholic faith, and they do not
prevent communion with the Roman church, it was not and it is not the
intention, understanding, or will of the Roman church to remove or destroy
them by means of this union; and this could not and cannot be said or thought;
instead these rites have been allowed and granted to the Ruthenian bishops and
clergy by Apostolic kindness."
15. It is proper here to remember the
churches which in later times different popes entrusted to Greeks, Maronites,
Armenians, Copts, and Melchites in Rome. These still exist, with each group
performing the holy ceremonies in accordance with its own rite. It can also be
recalled that Clement VIII (in his constitution 34, sect. 7 of Veteris
Bullarii) established a Greek bishop in Rome to ordain, according to the Greek
rite, Italo-Greeks who lived in Latin dioceses. Another Greek bishop was
established in the Diocese of Bisiniana by Our immediate predecessor Clement
XII, and his constitution Pastoralis, to ordain Italo-Greeks and spare those
who lived far from Rome the long journey to obtain ordination at the hands of
the Greek Bishop of Rome. Catholic bishops of the Maronites, Copts, and
Melchites who from time to time live in Rome are not denied the faculty of
ordaining men of their own nation according to their own rite, provided
suitable candidates are found. Whenever a dispute arises about the practice of
the Orientals or the Italo-Greeks, the Apostolic See makes every effort to
ensure that they correct what clearly needs correction, but states at once
that it desires the Oriental rite to remain untouched and unshaken in all
other respects. It also proclaims that laws affecting Italo-Greeks who live
among us and are subject to the jurisdiction of Latin bishops should be
understood to affect only these and should not in any way be extended to the
Oriental Greeks who live far from us and are subject to their own Greek
Catholic bishops.
16. This is learned from the
confirmation of the provincial synod of the Ruthenians which met at Zamoscia
in 1720. At that time Benedict XIII appointed Us to examine this matter as
secretary of the Congregation of the Council. He thought the suggestions of
the fathers of this synod should be approved, although they restrained or
removed by their decrees some Greek rites which were in practice. He confirmed
the synod in his apostolic brief in 1724, but added the following statement:
"However Our confirmation of this synod should not be thought to derogate in
the least from the constitutions of the popes who preceded Us or from the
decrees of the General Councils on the subject of Greek Rites. Notwithstanding
this confirmation, these rites should always remain strong."
The same message is gathered from many
of Our own constitutions which can be found in Our Bullarium under the general
headings of the rites of the Copts, Melchites, Maronites, Ruthenians, and
Italo-Greeks and also specifically on the rites of the clergy of the
collegiate church of Messana called St. Mary's de Grafeo, and finally on the
Greek rite observed in the Order of St. Basil. In constitution 87 (Bullarii,
vol. 1) on the rites of the Greek Melchites the following passage occurs: "So
on the rites and customs of the Greek Church We have decided to command
firstly and in general that no one has been or is permitted on any pretext or
authority or rank even of a patriarch or a bishop to make any changes or
introduce anything to detract from their full precise observance."
In the earlier constitution 57, Etsi
Pastoralis, sect. 9, no. 1, the following measures are taken in regard to
Italo-Greeks: "Since the rites of the Oriental Church, which derive mainly
from the holy Fathers and tradition, have so impressed themselves on the minds
of the Greeks and of other men, the Roman pontiffs, Our predecessors, have
wisely preferred to approve and allow these rites, in so far as they are not
at variance with the Catholic faith, dangerous to souls, or disreputable for
the Church, rather than to reduce them to the form of the Roman ceremonies
etc." And sect. 9, no. 24: "Furthermore everything which We have earlier
granted, commanded, or forbidden to Italo-Greeks is not intended to prejudice
any rights of the Oriental Greeks under their own Catholic bishops,
archbishops, or patriarchs, or any of the rites of other Christian peoples
which have been approved or allowed by the Holy See. These include all rights
whether of law or custom or other legal grounds either from apostolic
constitutions or the decrees passed by General or Special Councils or of the
Congregations of the Cardinals on the subject of the rites of the Greeks or
other Orientals."
Profession of Faith by Orientals
17. Passing by these questions, We will
declare freely that the Roman pontiffs have carefully and tirelessly attempted
to overcome the heresies which gave rise to the schism between the western and
the eastern church, and that consequently they have commanded orientals who
want to return to the unity of the Church to reject these errors, to find out
if they really belong in union with the Apostolic See.
There are two forms of this profession
of faith. The first was prescribed for Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII (veteris
Bullarii, vol. 2, 33) while the second was demanded of Orientals by Pope Urban
VIII. Both were published at the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith, the first in 1623 and the second in 1642. Subsequently, in 1665, the
Patriarch of Antioch, Syriacus of Hierapolis, and the Archbishop of the
Syrians in Hierapolis sent their profession of faith to Rome. Father Lorenzo
de Lauraea of the Order of Conventuals Minor of St. Francis, then a consultor
of the holy office and later a Cardinal, was asked to examine the question and
on April 28th he produced his written verdict. It was subsequently approved by
the Congregation, which concludes as follows: "All should be received, but
those whom it concerns should be informed that they should not hereafter use a
profession of faith different from that prescribed for Orientals by Urban VIII
of happy memory, since this profession contains a rejection of many heresies
and other matters needful for those districts."
Correction of the Greek Euchologion
18. Since the enemy, in order to sow
weeds among the wheat, has driven some men so deeply into wickedness that they
have inserted errors in Missals, Breviaries, and Rituals to mislead the
clergy, the popes with timely wisdom have had new editions of the missals of
the Copts, Maronites, Illyrians, etc., published by the Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith after a careful examination of each of them. And We
must mention the care which was devoted to the correction of the Greek
Euchologion published in recent months by the press of the same Congregation.
The examination of this work was begun
zealously under Pope Urban VIII, but it was interrupted after a short time. It
was taken up again under Clement XII, but God reserved for Us the joy of
beholding the completion of this very important work. During Our pontificate
Cardinals, Prelates, theologians, and men trained in the languages of the east
devoted long hours to work and discussion. We Ourselves read the discussions
and weighed every matter which called for examination.
The work was revised scrupulously to
avoid the slightest injury to the Greek rite and to ensure that this rite
remained unimpaired and entire. This course was followed, even though
previously, in their utter ignorance of the Oriental liturgies and rites which
existed in the eastern church before the time of the schism, some of our
theologians whose expert knowledge was confined to the western rite, used to
condemn every detail which differed from this rite. In short, the chief
concern of the popes in securing the return of Greeks and Oriental schismatics
to the Catholic religion has ever been to pluck completely from their minds
the errors of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscuros, the
Monothelites, and others, into which they had wretchedly fallen. But the rites
which they observed and professed before the schism and the practice which
depends on these ancient liturgies and rituals have always been left
unchanged. Indeed the popes have never asked those returning to the Catholic
faith to give up their own rite and assume the Latin rite. For this would
involve the complete extermination of the eastern church and of the Greek and
other Eastern rites, an objective which this Holy See has certainly never
planned or striven for.
19. Many inferences can be made from
Our present exposition. First, the missionary who is attempting with God's
help to bring back Greek and eastern schismatics to unity should devote all
his effort to the single objective of delivering them from doctrines at
variance with the Catholic faith. Their forefathers accepted these errors as
some sort of pretext for leaving the unity of the Church and for refusing the
pope the respect and obedience which is his due as head of the Church.
A missionary should make use of the
following proofs. Since the Orientals are greatly devoted to their own Church
Fathers, Leo Allatius and other notable theologians have studied the question
carefully and have shown clearly that the more notable Fathers of the Greek
and Latin Church fully agree on all points of doctrine; they specifically
reject the errors which fetter the east now. Consequently the study of those
books will be beneficial.
In the last century the Lutherans tried
to draw Greeks and Orientals into their own errors. The Calvinists, who
bitterly attack the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist
and the transubstantiation of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, made the
same attempt; it is reported that they won over the Patriarch Cyril to their
view. However the Greeks, schismatic as they are, realized that the new errors
were at variance with the teaching of their Fathers, especially SS. Cyril,
John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Damascene; with firm proofs drawn
from their own liturgies which affirm the Real Presence and
Transubstantiation, they rejected the deceptions and refused to abandon any
aspect of the Catholic truth (see Schelestratus De perpetua consensione
Orientalis Ecclesiae contra Lutheranos, the chapter De transubstantiatione, p.
717, vol. 2, of Actorum Ecclesiae Orientalis). In two synods they unanimously
condemned Patriarch Cyril and the Calvinist doctrines published under his name
(see Christian Lupus, ad Concilia Generalia, et Provincialia, part 5, and
particularly his treatise De quibusdam locis, chap. 9, at end).
In the first place this gives
substantial hope that when they are confronted with the teaching of the
Fathers, which strongly supports our Catholic doctrine and attacks their own
more recent errors, they will be inspired to a genuine conversion and find it
very easy to return. Secondly, it can be seen that there is no need to harm or
destroy their rites in recalling them to the way of unity since the Apostolic
See has always opposed this procedure. This See has been able to separate the
weeds from the wheat in these holy rites as often as the need arose. Moreover
the attempt to destroy their rites will only jeopardize the desired union, as
Thomas of Jesus rightly reflects: "It must also be shown that the Roman church
approves and favors each Church maintaining its own rites and ceremonies,
since of course the schismatics are very attached to their own rites. A timely
effort must be made to persuade them that they will be confirmed in the
observance of their own ceremonies in order to prevent any false suspicion
developing that these rites would be abolished and any consequent turning away
from the Roman church, which has no such objective" (De conversione omnium
gentium procuranda, bk. 7, chap. 2).
Thirdly and finally, from what has
already been said it can be inferred that a missionary who wants to convert an
eastern schismatic should not attempt to make him accept the Latin rite. For
the only work entrusted to the missionary is that of recalling the Oriental to
the Catholic faith, not that of making him accept the Latin rite.
Transferring from Latin to Greek Rite
Forbidden
20. When Union was effected at the
Council of Florence, some Latin Catholics living in Greece thought that it was
lawful for them to go over to the Greek rite. They may have been attracted by
the freedom retained by the Greeks for priests to keep wives after Ordination
if they were married before being ordained. But Pope Nicholas V carefully
applied a timely remedy to this abuse: "It has come to Our attention that many
Catholics in districts with a Greek Catholic bishop are shamelessly going over
to the Greek rites under pretext of the Union. We are greatly astonished,
since We do not know what inspired them to leave the practice and rites in
which they were born and reared for foreign rites. Even though the rites of
the oriental church are praiseworthy, it is not permitted to confuse the rites
of the churches. The holy council of Florence never allowed this"
(constitution in Bullarii recenter Romae editi, vol. 3, part 3, p. 64).
Since the Latin rite is the rite of the
holy Roman church and this church is mother and teacher of the other churches,
the Latin rite should be preferred to all other rites. It follows that it is
not lawful to transfer from the Latin to the Greek rite. Nor may those who
have come over to the Latin rite from the Greek or Oriental rite return again
to the Greek Rite, unless particular circumstances occasion the giving of a
dispensation (constitution Etsi Pastoralis 57, sect. 2, no. 13, in Our
Bullarii, vol. 1). Such dispensations have sometimes been given in times past,
and are still given in the Roman College of the Maronites. When a priest there
enters the Society of Jesus, he is given a dispensation to transfer to the
Latin rite, and sometimes he receives an additional dispensation to say Mass
and perform his Divine Office in the church of this College in the Syrian and
Chaldaean rite in order to teach this rite to the students there. This is
quite clear from many Decrees of the Congregation of the Holy Office, e.g. the
Decrees of December 30, 1716; December 14, 1740; and the more recent Decree of
August 19, 1752.
Transferring from Greek to Latin Rite
21. We have dealt with transferring
from the Latin to the Greek rite. Transferrals in the opposite direction are
not forbidden as strictly as the former. Still, a missionary who hopes for the
return of a Greek or Oriental to the unity of the Catholic Church may not make
him give up his own rite. This can cause great harm.
Melchite Catholics used to transfer
willingly from the Greek to the Latin rite, but they have been forbidden to do
so. Missionaries have been warned not to urge them to transfer. Permission to
do so has been reserved to the private decision of the Apostolic See. This is
clear from Our constitution Demandatam, 85, sect. 35 (Bullarium, vol. 1):
"Moreover We expressly forbid henceforth all Melchite Catholics who observe
the Greek rite to transfer to the Latin rite. We give strict orders to all
missionaries not to encourage anyone rashly to transfer to the Latin from the
Greek rite, nor even to allow them to do so if they want to without the
permission of the Apostolic See, under the penalties which will be set out
below and other penalties to be decided on by Us."
The same teaching is conveyed in the
Decrees of Urban VIII in reference to the GrecoRuthenian rite, issued at the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in his presence on February 7
and July 6, 1624. While it might seem fair to allow Italo-Greeks to transfer
freely from the Greek to the Latin rite, since they live among us and are
subject to a Latin bishop, it has nevertheless been laid down that the consent
of the Apostolic See is necessary in the case of the transference of secular
or regular clergy. If lay people want to transfer, the permission of their
bishop is sufficient. He may give this permission with restraint to certain
specified individuals, but never to a whole group. In the latter case the
consent of the Apostolic See is required (see constitution Etsi Pastoralis 17,
sect. 2, no. 14, Bullarium, vol. 1).
22. It is not difficult to respond to
the claim that Orientals and other Greeks who reject their heresy and return
to unity can be lawfully exhorted to abandon their own rite and accept the
Latin rite on the grounds that approval has been given in the past and still
continues for Orientals and Greeks to practice individual Latin rites.
First Category-Some Greeks Insist that
Latins Follow Their Rites
There are two classes, as it were, of
Greeks and Orientals. The first class consists of men who are not satisfied
with the concessions made to them by the Apostolic See in order to preserve
the Union. They are carried shamelessly beyond the bounds of decency; they
claim that all their own practices are correct and that the Latins are
mistaken not to follow the same practices.
Unleavened Bread
Take the example of unleavened bread.
Greeks and Orientals must admit as Catholics that unleavened as well as
leavened bread is suitable matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that
each person should follow the rite of his own church. Consequently any
condemnation of the rite of the Latin church which uses unleavened bread in
consecrating the Eucharist falls into error.
The monk Hilarion, in his Dialectical
Oration, says: "I have written this to you, beloved Greeks, without attacking
your bread, which I respect and reverence as much as I do our own unleavened
bread. But I have explained that your conduct is neither correct nor Christian
when you insult and injure in word and deed the unleavened bread of the Latins.
In both cases, as has been said, Christ is truly present" (Latin translation
of the Greek by Leo Allatius in Graeciae Orthodoxae, vol. 1, p. 762, 1652).
Married Clergy
Another example is the freedom enjoyed
by priests of the Oriental and Greek church to remain married to their wives
after their ordination (see can. Aliter, dist. 31 and chap. Cum olim, de
Clericis Conjugatis). Considering that this practice was at variance neither
with divine nor natural law, but only with Church discipline, the popes judged
it right to tolerate this custom, which flourished among Greeks and Orientals,
rather than to forbid it by their apostolic authority, to avoid giving them a
pretext to abandon unity. So does Arcudius assess the matter (Concordia bk. 7,
chap. 33).
Nevertheless, incredible though it
sounds, some Greeks and Orientals still accuse the Latin church of rejecting
marriage simply because it requires celibacy of its subdeacons, deacons, and
priests in imitation of the Apostles (see Hincmar of Rheims, Operum, vol. 2,
letter 51).
Confirmation Following Baptism
A third and final example is provided
by some of the Copts, whose rite prescribes that Confirmation should be
conferred immediately after Baptism. The western church does not observe this
practice, but generally requires that candidates for Confirmation be old
enough to be able to distinguish between good and evil. The Roman Church does
not oppose the ancient practice of the Copts. However-again this is
incredible-some of them reject Baptism conferred by Latins because the
Sacrament of Confirmation was not conferred after this Baptism.
For this reason they are rightly
convicted and condemned in Our constitution 129 (Eo quamvis tempore in Our
Bullarium vol. 1): "Just as it befits the gentleness and patience of the
Apostolic See to allow the Copts to continue in their longestablished practice
which has been tolerated by this See, so it is intolerable that they bitterly
reject Baptism conferred in the Latin rite separately from Confirmation."
The Second Category-Greeks Who Follow
Some Latin Rites
23. In the second category are those
Orientals and Greeks who in the main observe their own rites, but out of
respect follow some of the rites of the Latins and the Western Churches. This
has been their practice from ancient times, and their bishops have examined
and approved it. It has also been confirmed either expressly or tacitly by the
Apostolic See. To this category belong the Armenians and Maronites who have
abandoned the use of leavened bread in celebrating the Eucharist. Like the
Latins they use unleavened bread (Abraham Echellensis, Eutychio vindicato, p.
477). Some of the Armenians attribute this practice to St. Gregory the
Illuminator, their first bishop. At the start of the fourth century in the
time of King Tiridates, he won the martyr's crown. Others claim that Pope St.
Sylvester or St. Gregory the Great approved the practice in meetings with the
Armenian people. Pope Gregory IX refers to these in his letter to the king of
Armenia (Raynaldus, 1139), no. 82). Gregory, Patriarch of Sis, certainly
states that this practice was given to the Armenians by the Roman Church in
his letter to Haytonis the cenobite, father of King Leo of Armenia: "So we
have recently received from the Holy Roman Church the practice of mixing water
(with the wine in the chalice) just as we formerly received the use of
unleavened bread, the episcopal mitre, and the method of making the sign of
the Cross (Clement Galanus, Conciliatione Ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana, vol.
1, p. 449).
Using Unleavened Bread
The practice of using unleavened bread
dates from antiquity among the Maronites. This is clear from Morinus,
Praefatione ad Maronitarum Ordinationes, and from the Bibliotheca Orientali
Assemani senioris, vol. 1, p. 410. It was also affirmed at the national synod
held at Mt. Libanus in 1736 and confirmed by Us in Our constitution no. 31,
Singularis (Bullarium, vol. 1). We wrote there that: "This custom has been
followed both in our church and among the Armenians in the east since time out
of mind, and we can produce genuine proofs that this is so" (chap. 12, de
Sacramento Eucharistiae, in the section on unleavened bread).
In emulation of this practice of the
Armenians and Maronites, Cardinal Bessarion, first Commendatory Abbot of
Grottaferrata in the diocese of Tusculum, brought it about that Greek monks in
the abbey should consecrate unleavened bread (constitution 33, Inter multa,
sect. Ut autem, Our Bullarium, vol. 2). This practice is still observed in the
Collegiate Church of St. Mary de Grafeo in the diocese of Messana, even though
this church's clergy follow the Greek rite (constitution 81, Romana Ecclesia,
sect. 1, Our Bullarium, vol. 1).
Generally speaking, Italian Greek
priests in Italy and the nearby islands observe their own practice of
consecrating the Eucharist with leavened bread. Priests of both the Latin and
Greek rite should be warned to be careful to consecrate and distribute the
Eucharist in accordance with their own rite, as We have stated in Our
constitution, Etsi Pastoralis, 57, sect. 1, no. 2, ant sect. 6, no. 10f (Our
Bullarium, vol. 1).
The Sacrament of the Eucharist
Immediately Following Baptism
24. For several centuries the practice
prevailed in the Church of giving children the Eucharist after the sacrament
of baptism. This practice flourished as a simple rite and custom; it involved
no belief that it was necessary for the eternal salvation of the children, as
the fathers of Trent wisely remarked (session 21, chap. 4). Among the errors
of the Armenians which Pope Benedict XII condemned, the fifty eighth was their
declaration that the Eucharist as well as Confirmation must be given to
children at baptism to ensure the validity of their baptism and their eternal
salvation (Raynaldus, 1341, sect. 66).
For the last four centuries, the
Western church has not given the Eucharist to children after baptism. But it
must be admitted that the Rituals of the Oriental churches contain a rite of
Communion for children after baptism. Assemanus the Younger (Codicis Liturgici),
bk. 2, p. 149) gives the ceremony of conferring baptism among the Melchites.
On page 309, he quotes the Syrians' baptismal ceremony as it was published by
Philoxenus, the Monophysite Bishop of Mabbug, and on p. 306, the ceremony from
the ancient Ritual of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch and leader of the
Monophysites. He gives also the ceremonies of baptism observed by the
Armenians and Copts (bk. 3, p. 95 and 130). All of these ceremonies command
that the Eucharist should be given to children after baptism.
St. Thomas says that this practice was
still observed by some Greeks in his time (Summa Th. 3, qu. 70, art. to the
third). But Arcudius writes that this is the practice of the Greeks although
some of them gradually abandoned it on account of the difficulties which arose
repeatedly from offering the Eucharist to children at baptism (de Sacramento
Eucharistiae, bk. 3, ch. 11.). Canon 7 of the Maronite Synod gathered at Mt.
Lebanon on 18 September 1596 under Sergius Patriarch of Antioch and presided
over by Fr. Jerome Dandin S.J., Nuncio of Pope Clement VIII, reads as follows:
"Since Christ's Holy Communion can hardly be given to children with propriety
and due respect for the holy sacrament, all priests should in the future
beware of allowing anyone to receive before he attains the use of reason." The
fathers of the synod of Zamoscia in 1720 agree with this view (sect. 3, de
Eucharistia). And the Synod of Lebanon confirmed it in 1736: "In our old
Rituals as well as in the old Roman ordo and in the Greek Euchologies, the
minister of Baptism is clearly told to give the sacrament of the Eucharist to
infants as soon as they are baptized ant confirmed. Still, both from due
respect for this most august sacrament and since this is not necessary for the
salvation of children and infants, we command that the Eucharist should not be
offered to infants when they are baptized, not even under the appearance of
wine" (chap. 12, Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento, no. 13). We made the
same provision in Our constitution for Italian Greeks Etsi Pastoralis (Our
Bullarium, vol. 1, sect. 2, no. 7).
Distributing Communion Under Both
Species
25. The Oriental and Greek practice of
distributing the Eucharist under both species even to lay people has been
discussed at length by Arcudius in in Concordia Occidentali, et Orientali in
Sacramentorum administratione, bk. 3, chap. 4, and by Leo Allatius in his
first note in de Ecclesiae Occidentalis, atque Orientalis consensione, p.
1614f. In the Greek College built in Rome by Gregory XIII, observance of the
Greek rite is obligatory. Leo Allatius affirms this in his treatise on de
aetate, et Interstitiis, p. 21. In accordance with the Constitution of the
College confirmed by Pope Urban VIII, the students must make a confession
every week and receive the holy Eucharist every fortnight as well as on solemn
feast days and every Sunday in Advent and Lent, following the Latin rite, But
on the greater feasts, at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas, they are obliged
to receive the Eucharist under both species in the Greek rite with leavened
bread and unmixed wine. The wine is given to them by means of a small spoon.
All other Greeks who come to Mass on those days, or who ask to receive the
Eucharist according to the Greek rite on other days of the year, are given
communion in the same way.
However, Our constitution 57 Etsi
Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 15, forbids the reception of Communion under both
species by Italian Greeks except in places where this rite has been strongly
upheld. Some Greeks and Orientals have gradually abandoned the practice of
receiving communion under both species, even though it is the established
custom of the whole Oriental church.
The famous Lucas Holstenius, writing to
Bertoldus Nimissius, relates that he gave the Eucharist in the Vatican
Basilica to an Abyssinian priest who came with others to communicate at the
altar. When he had given him communion under the appearance of bread alone, he
inquired of him as well as of other Ethiopians whether they in their own rite
usually received the Eucharist under the appearance of bread alone, both on
feast days and ordinary days and as viaticum for the dying. He declares that
they answered that they always received communion under the appearance of
bread alone, and that this ancient custom prevailed in the Ethiopian church
(in Opusculis Graecis, ac Latinis of Leo Allatius, p. 436).
Among the statements requested by Pope
Gregory XIII from the Patriarch of the Maronites is the following: "We
celebrate Mass only with unleavened bread, but our laity communicate under
both species." The Pope replied: "If they wish to consecrate unleavened bread,
it is obvious that they should not be prevented, but the laity should be
slowly discouraged from communicating under both species. For all Christ is
present under one species, and there is great danger of spilling if the
chalice is used" (Thomas of Jesus, de Conversione omnium gentium, p. 486f).
The fathers at the Synod of Lebanon,
1736, passed a similar decree: "Next, following the practices of the Holy
Roman Church, we order and strictly command that laity and minor clerics are
not to receive Communion under both species, but under one species only, that
of bread" (part 2, chap. 12, no. 21). They allowed only deacons to receive the
Eucharist under both species at a high Mass, first under the appearance of
bread, then of wine, without the use of a spoon as We mentioned above: "But we
allow deacons, especially at High mass, to receive from the priest the host
dipped in the Blood. A spoon however should not be used. We decree that the
use of spoons at Communion should be absolutely abolished."
Pouring Water into the Chalice
26. Our final point on the Sacrament of
the Eucharist concerns the other Oriental and Greek rite in which the priest
pours a little warm water into the chalice, after consecration but before
communion. Matthaeus Blastares mentions this rite and explains its meaning in
his Syntagmate Alphabetico, chap. 8 (Synodicon Graecorum, vol. 2, p. 153),
Euthymius, Archbishop of Tyre and Sidon, made some inquiries of Pope Clement
XI in 1716. He asked whether the Melchites of Syria and Palestine should be
forbidden to add warm water to the Divine Blood after the Consecration. The
reply he received contained a clear, careful instruction which the Pope
approved and ordered sent to the superiors of missions in the Holy Land,
Damascus, Tyre, and Sidon. He ordered the Archbishop not to forbid this
practice, since it was an ancient rite which the Apostolic See had examined
and allowed to Greek priests even in Rome. The warm water signified the warmth
of faith which should burst out in great flames in the face of so mighty a
mystery. Pope Benedict XIII gave a similar answer on March 31, 1729, to Cyril,
Greek Patriarch of Antioch. This rite is allowed to Italian Greeks in Our
constitution 57, Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 2.
Subsequently, in the Congregations
formed for the careful revision of the books of the Eastern Church, when a
long dispute arose as to whether the rite of pouring warm water into the
chalice after the consecration should be prohibited, the answer was given on
May 1, 1746, that "no changes should be made." It is true that Cardinal
Humbertus of Silva Candida had vigorously attacked this rite in earlier times,
but it was discovered that his arguments against the rite lacked substance.
Still the fathers of the Synod of Zamoscia in 1720 forbade Ruthenian priests
to pour warm water into the chalice after the Consecration. "For a serious
reason, the synod forbids and abolishes the rite which is tolerated in the
Eastern Church of pouring warm water into the chalice after the Consecration
before communion" (sect. 4 on the celebration of Mass).
27. Such occurrences-and many could be
recalled-are invoked by those who favor transference from the Oriental and
Greek rite to the Latin rite. They think they act rightly in their eager
attempts to bring Oriental converts to abandon, without Our prior consent, the
rite they used to observe, even though this has been firmly maintained from
ancient times by all other Orientals and Greeks.
But the events mentioned above and
those which could be mentioned do not in the least support their opinion. For
in the first place, transferring from an Oriental rite to the Latin rite
removes all the prescriptions of the Oriental rite which are at variance with
Our rite. But this is not what happened in the events We have mentioned;
although a specific Greek ritual was abolished, the Greek rite itself and all
its other prescriptions were preserved unchanged. In addition, to remove even
a part of the rite is not within the power of any individual, but requires the
intervention of the public authority of the supreme head of the universal
Church, the Roman Pontiff.
For the Apostolic See possesses the
preeminent right to decide what rituals are to be taken over from the Oriental
church by the Latin church. As often as this Apostolic See has noticed that a
dangerous or unfitting rite has made its way into the Oriental Church, it has
condemned, criticized, and forbidden its use in the Latin Church. Lastly,
whenever the Apostolic See sees Orientals or Greeks eager to take up a Latin
ritual, particularly when this ritual is ancient, widely established, and
either expressly or implicitly approved by the bishops, it has confirmed this
practice by toleration and approval.
The Creed
28. The Creed is said in both the Latin
and Greek liturgy. The practice of saying the Creed during the sacrifice of
the Mass was first established in the Greek Church and then introduced in the
Latin Church. This is evident from Canon Two of the third Council of Toledo in
589: "That the creed of the faith be said in all churches of Spain or Galicia
in accordance with the form of the Oriental churches and of the council of
Constantinople at which 150 bishops were present; that it be sung with clear
voice by the people before the Lord's prayer is said" (Labbe, Collectionis,
vol. 5, p. 1009).
Since the fathers at Toledo appealed to
the rite of the Oriental churches in establishing the practice of saying the
Creed during Mass, it is quite evident that this practice was first
established in the east and spread from there to the west. This is the opinion
both of Cardinal Bona, Rerum Lyturgic, bk. 2, chap. 8, no. 2, and of Georgius,
de lyturgia Romani Pontificis, vol. 2, chap. 20, no. 2, p. 176.
Adoration of the Cross
Continuing with Our topic, Amalarius in
his de Divinis Officiis, chap. 14 (relying on the authority of St. Paulinus'
Epistola ad Severum) relates that the Cross on which Christ hung was exposed
for the adoration of the faithful in the church at Jerusalem on Good Friday of
Holy Week only. He declares that the ceremony of the adoration of the Holy
Cross which forms part of the Good Friday service in every Latin church until
the present day derived from this practice of the Greeks.
Trisagion
The trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Strong
One, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" is a pious and oft-repeated prayer in
the Greek liturgy; Goarius correctly observes this in his in notis ad
Euchologium, p. 109, in reference to the Mass of St. John Chrysostom. This
prayer originated in a miracle which occurred in Constantinople in the middle
of the fifth century. Emperor Theodosius, Patriarch Proclus, and all the
people were beseeching God on open ground for deliverance from the destruction
which threatened them from violent earthquakes. They suddenly saw a boy
snatched up to heaven; when he was returned to earth, he reported that he had
heard the angels singing the trisagion. At the bidding of the Patriarch
Proclus, the whole people sang it with devotion and the terrifying earthquakes
ceased, as is related by Nicephorus, bk. 14, chap. 46, and mentioned by Pope
Felix III in his third letter to Peter the Fuller (Labbe, Collectionis, vol.
4). This same trisagion is sung in the western church in Greek and Latin on
Friday of Holy Week, as Cardinal Bona remarks (Rerum Lyturgicar., bk. 2, chap.
10, no. 5).
Blessing of Water at Epiphany
The blessing of water on the eve of the
Epiphany derives from the rite of the Greek Church, as Goarius shows at length
in the case of the Euchology or Ritual of the Greeks. At the present time, on
the same day, this ceremony is performed in Rome in the Church of the Greeks,
as We recalled in constitution 57, sect. 5, no. 13, and the faithful are
permitted to be sprinkled with this holy water.
On the transmission of this rite from
the Oriental Church to some western churches two authorities may be consulted:
Martene, vol. 4, de antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina in Dovomos celebrandis
Officiis, chap. 4, no. 2, and Fr. Sebastianus Paulus of the Congregation of
the Mother of God, De ritu Ecclesiae Neritinae exorcizandi aquam in Epiphania,
Naples, 1719. The latter writer (part. 3, pp. 177ff) gives bishops an
appropriate admonition not to give cause for rioting by attempting to abolish
certain ceremonies which have at a great distance in time made their way into
their dioceses from the Greek church. To attack these ceremonies, he says,
would give the appearance of criticizing the way the Apostolic See has acted
in regard to these rites. Although this See was well aware that these
ceremonies had come from the Greek church it permitted them to be observed and
attended. On p. 203 he quotes the letter of Cardinal Sanctorius of Sancta
Severina written in 1580 to Fornarius, Bishop of Nerita, on this topic of the
blessing of water at Epiphany which was performed in his diocese.
Stripping and Washing the Altar
The ceremony of stripping and washing
the altar on Holy Thursday is also Greek. A reference to this ceremony is
found in the fifth century. St. Sabas mentions it in his Typico, the Order of
saying the Divine Office throughout the year. According to Leo Allatius, he
died in 451 (de Libris Ecclesiae Graecae, dissert. I, p. 9). If it could be
asserted with certainty that the Roman order published by Hittorpius was
composed at the command of Pope St. Gelasius, the ceremony of washing the
altars on Holy Thursday would be almost as ancient in the Latin Church as it
is in the Greek Church, since Gelasius died in 496. But the antiquity of this
Order is disputed and, apart from it, St. Isidore, Bishop of Hispala, is the
first of the Latins to mention this ceremony. He died in 646. So probably this
ceremony came to the west from the east and is observed to this day in some
Latin churches with papal approval. In particular it is performed each year on
Holy Thursday with great solemnity in the Vatican Basilica.
Suarez, Bishop of Vasionum and Vicar of
this Basilica, and John Chrysostom Battellus, Archbishop of Amaseno, who were
recently appointed Beneficiates of this Basilica, have each published a
thoughtful treatise elucidating this ceremony. Therefore, it is evident from
these examples that the Apostolic See, for good reasons, has adopted for the
whole Latin Church ceremonies which belong to the Greek Church and has allowed
some Latin churches to observe particular ceremonies.
Trisagion
29. We have mentioned above the
miraculous way in which the trisagion entered the liturgies of the Greek
Church. Peter the Fuller, surnamed Gnaphaeus, a promoter of the heresy of the
Apollinarists who are called Theopaschites, attempted to add to the trisagion
the words: "You who were crucified for us" (Theodorus Lector, Collectanear,
bk. 1). And some eastern bishops, especially Syrians and Armenians, at the
instigation of one James the Syrian, accepted this addition (Nicephorus, bk.
18, chap. 52). When this happened, the Roman popes with their usual watchful
concern opposed this error from the start and prohibited the addition. They
did not accept the interpretation which claimed that the trisagion referred to
the person of the Son alone, not to the three divine persons, and so avoided
all suspicion of error. For a danger of associating with heretical teaching
still remained, and the human mind for all its rashness could not plausibly
refer to Christ alone a hymn sung by the angels in honor of the Holy Trinity,
as Lupus rightly observes (Notes ad Trullanum, canon 81). After relating that
the addition to the trisagion had been condemned by Pope Felix III and a Roman
synod, Lupus continues: "They declare firmly that the hymn eternally sung to
the Trinity alone by the holy angels and transmitted to the Church by God
Himself and the holy angels by means of the miraculous boy was confirmed by
the cessation of the earthquakes which were threatening Constantinople. They
were approved in this sense by the whole Council of Chalcedon (he refers both
to the bishops who attended the Council and to those others who rejected the
addition to the trisagion). Therefore the words of the hymn cannot be daringly
twisted to signify Christ alone."
St. Gregory VII, with similar zeal,
condemned the addition in his letter to the Archbishop of Patriarch of the
Armenians (bk. 8, 1). Gregory XIII acted in like manner in his Brief of
February 14, 1577, to the Patriarch of the Maronites. In the Congregation for
the Propagation of the Faith which met on January 30, 1635, the liturgy of the
Armenians was examined.
Among the matters which were carefully
discussed was whether the addition to the trisagion could be tolerated on the
grounds that it could be understood to refer to the person of the Son alone.
The answer given was that it should not be allowed and that the addition
should be utterly deleted.
Women Assisting at Mass
Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter
(chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had
been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since
this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his
letter to the bishop of Tusculum: "Women should not dare to serve at the
altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry." We too have forbidden
this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi
Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.
Eucharist for Viaticum
On Thursday of Holy Week, in memory of
the Lord's Supper, there is peformed the ceremony of consecrating the bread
which is kept for a full year as viaticum for the mortally ill who request
Holy Communion. Sometimes too a little of the consecrated wine is added to
this consecrated bread. Leo Allatius describes this ceremony in his treatise,
de Communione Orientalium sub specie unica num, no. 7. Pope Innocent IV in his
letter to the bishop of Tusculum forbade the Greeks to perform this ceremony.
"They should not reserve for a year the Eucharist which has been consecrated
on Holy Thursday on the pretext that the sick may receive communion from
this." He added that they should always have the Eucharist ready for the sick,
but that they should replace it every fortnight.
Arcudius, de Concordia Ecclesiae
Occidentalis, et Orientalis, bk. 5, chap. 55 and 56, points out the extremes
to which this ceremony leads and beseeches the popes to abolish it entirely.
Clement VIII did this in an Instruction, as did We in Our constitution 57,
Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 3f. It was decreed at the Synod of Zamoscia,
which was studied by the Congregation of the Council as well as by the
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, that the ceremony of
consecrating the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, pouring on it a drop of the Blood
and keeping it for a full year for the sick should for the future be
discontinued wherever it was still in practice. Parish priests should keep the
Eucharist for the sick but replace it every week or fortnight (sect. 3, de
Eucharistia). The fathers of the synod of Lebanon, which We confirmed, acted
in the same way (chap. 12, de Sacramento Eucharistiae, no. 24).
These examples show clearly that the
Apostolic See has always forbidden ceremonies to the Greeks, even if they
already were prevalent among them, whenever it saw that these ceremonies were
already or were in danger of becoming evil and destructive.
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the
Father and the Son
30. Whenever the union of the Greek and
Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this
point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three
headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from
the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been
firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a
dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.
Granting that this is so, the second
question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to
the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of
Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that
the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to
the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to
produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who
assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in
answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make
this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only
additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with
general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more
plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.
On the assumption that the first two
answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and
Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the
Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final
point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the
Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance
was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it
realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At
other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition.
It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to
include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the
Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church
had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."
The former approach was used by two
popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council
of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis
Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was
taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not
acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in
establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this
comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7.
Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are
contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres,
who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they
did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required
that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to
remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith
and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to
say the same Creed as the Latins."
Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of
Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when
he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin,
vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less
averse to the addition then were the Greeks.
Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he
sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of
Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from
the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from
Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of
Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius,
p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1,
p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople
were weak in this dogma of the faith.
There is nothing at variance with the
decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the
Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks
by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6,
of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi
Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and
Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people
should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and
from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making
this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however,
it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting
the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought
necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith.
However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide
Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right
to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject
to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the
custom of the Roman Church.
31. The obvious conclusion from the
foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes
agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of
individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others
in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task
which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly
allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were
devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if
the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or
implicitly.
Latin Rite Adopted by Oriental Church
We referred to evident examples of this
occurrence above, in mentioning the category of Orientals and Greeks who
respect equally the Latin and Greek rites. In the main they observe their own
ceremonies, but are attached to some of Ours. Therefore, We will refrain from
useless repetition, merely recalling here what was fully presented earlier in
this letter. We shall add just two examples from the Maronites. For several
centuries the episcopal and priestly vestments of the Maronites have resembled
exactly the vestments prescribed in the Latin rite (Synod of Lebanon 1736,
chap. 12, on the sacrament of the Eucharist, no. 7). Pope Innocent 111 in his
letter Quia Divinae Sapientiae bonitas to Patriarch Jeremiah in 1215 exhorted
them to imitate the episcopal vestments of the Latin Church. In consequence
this pope and his successors sent them gifts of holy vestments, chalices, and
patens (Patriarch Peter in two letters to Leo X in Labbe, Collectionis
Conciliorum, vol. 14, p. 346f). Recently at the synod of Lebanon (chap. 13),
unanimously and with Our approval, the Maronites adopted the Latin rite in
regard to the Mass of the Presanctified. They celebrate it only on Good
Friday, since they have abandoned for just reasons the practice of the Greeks
who offer only the Mass of the Presanctified on the days of the Lenten fast,
except on Saturdays, Sundays, and the feast of the Annunciation when it occurs
in Lent, as is laid down in Trullan Canon 52. On these days the priest divides
the consecrated bread into as many pieces as will suffice for celebrating the
Mass of the Presanctified on the following days. On these days he consumes and
distributes to the congregation these pieces, which he had reserved in the
ciborium (Leo Allatius in his prolegomena to Gabriel Naud, de Missa
Praesanctificatorum, p. 1531, n. 1).
32. One might think that this letter
could end at this point. It has answered the questions raised by the
missionary priest at Balsera by stating that "no changes should be made." Also
it has mentioned the stringent rules to be followed by missionaries engaged in
recalling Orientals from schism and error to the unity of the holy Catholic
faith. The Canons and Apostolic Constitutions prohibit those who convert
Orientals from attempting to destroy the Oriental and Greek rite in matters
which the Apostolic See allows and prohibits trying to make converts abandon
the rite they previously observed and embrace the Latin rite. Nevertheless,
before ending, We may fittingly touch on some additional points which are
quite relevant to the questions raised by the missionary who has been told
that "no changes should be made."
Additional Points
33. Now it is true that in the city of
Balsera, Armenian and Syrian Catholics of the Oriental rite who have no church
of their own assemble at the church of the Latin missionaries. Their priests
celebrate Mass and other ceremonies there according to their own rite in the
presence of the laity, who also receive the Sacraments. Still, it is not
difficult to uphold the decision that "no changes should be made"; therefore
the prevailing practice should continue, that is, that the priests and laity
should continue celebrating in the Latin church the rites they have celebrated
until now.
Canon Law decrees that the Oriental and
Greek rite should not be mixed with the Latin rite. See the entire Decretal of
Celestine III in Gonzales, chap. Cum secundum: de temporibus Ordinationum; in
the decretal of Innocent III, see chap. Quanto: de consuetudine; chap. Quoniam:
de Officio Judic. Ordinar.; and the Decretal of Honorius III, chap. Literas:
de celebrat. Missar. But there are no good grounds for declaring that this
mixing of rite forbidden by Apostolic Constitution is being practiced in the
simple case of an Armenian, Maronite, or Greek celebrating Mass or other
ceremonies with their own laity according to their own rite in a Latin church.
Nor are there grounds in the opposite case of a Latin doing likewise in an
Oriental church, especially when there is a just cause for doing so. Clearly
such a cause exists in the present case, since the Orientals in the city of
Balsera have no church of their own. If they were deprived of the Latin
church, they would have nowhere to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and perform
the essential ceremonies with the laity of their rite which maintain and
nourish them in holy unity.
34. An example of the forbidden mixing
of rite would be a Latin consecrating leavened bread and giving communion from
it to Latins. It would be the same if Orientals who do not consecrate
unleavened bread were to do so and to distribute it to their people for holy
communion. Latin Ordinaries who have Italian Greeks subject to them should
show a careful concern "that Latins receive communion from unleavened bread
and Greeks from leavened bread where they have their own parish" (Our
constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 14).
Another example of forbidden mixing of
rites would be a priest celebrating Mass at one time according to the Latin
rite and at another time according to the Greek rite. St. Pius V forbids this
in his constitution 21, Providentia (Bull. novi, vol. 4, pt. 2, Rome). He
revokes absolutely all faculties of so doing which had previously been granted
to-some priests. Our constitution 57, sect. 7, no. 10, agrees with this
constitution of Pius V. Even though priests in charge of colleges of Orientals
in Rome who became Jesuits and transferred from the Greek to the Latin rite
have received a dispensation to sometimes offer the sacrifice of the Mass in
the Greek and Oriental rite, as already mentioned, this has been approved in
order that their students may learn how to celebrate Mass in their own rite
since they are bound to profess the Greek and Maronite rite and conduct divine
services in accordance with it thoughout their lives. The particular
circumstances of this obviously unique case show clearly enough that it cannot
be used as an exemplary argument for gaining similar dispensations.
Cardinal Kollonitz advised Pope Clement
XI that allowing Latin missionaries in Hungary to celebrate in the Greek rite
whenever this appeared necessary, while remaining at liberty to return to the
Latin rite, would be beneficial to the Church. The Pope rejected the
Cardinal's advice because he felt that each one should remain in his own rite
in accordance with the provisions of the Canons and that a priest should not
be permitted to change the rite in which he celebrated Mass. This is clear
from his Brief to the Cardinal on May 9, 1705 (Epistolar. et Brev. selectior,
ejusdem Pontificis typis editor, p. 205).
35. These among many other examples
refer to the mixing of rite, which is forbidden by the Church's laws. But
there is no forbidden mixing of rites involved if, for a lawful cause, priests
of the Oriental rite are allowed to celebrate Mass and other services in a
Latin church and administer the sacraments to their own people. We see this
happening openly in Rome where our churches are available to Armenian, Coptic,
Melchite, and Greek priests for the celebration of Mass to satisfy their
piety, even though they have their own churches where they could offer the
sacrifice of the Mass. They have only to bring with them the vestments and
other necessities for celebrating Mass according to their rite, as well as a
server from their own people; they must also take appropriate steps with
guards and prefects of the sanctuary to prevent riotous tumults among the
bystanders on account of the novelty of the event. These matters are fully
discussed in the edict promulgated at Our command on February 13, 1743, by Our
Vicar General in the City and its district, Giovanni Antonio Guadagni, who
then was titular priest of Sts. Sylvester and Martin on the Mountains and is
now Bishop of Tusculum and Cardinal.
Important for this topic is the
following event: about the middle of the fifteenth century, as is well known,
Mahomet II began to attack Constantinople. Some of the Greeks who had rejected
the errors of the Schismatics and preserved union with the Latin Church
retreated to Venice and remained there. When the Greek Cardinal Isidore came
there, he informed the Senate of the Pope's wishes to have a church assigned
to these people of the Greek rite for their services. The piety of the Senate
was aroused, and they gave the refugees the Church of St. Blasius. In one
chapel of this church for many years the Greeks performed the divine services
in the Greek rite, while in the other chapels, the Latins worshipped in the
Latin rite. This is attested by the renowned Flaminius Cornelius Scriptor,
Venetarum Ecclesiarum, Decad. 14, p. 359: "So the services of both rites were
celebrated for several years in different chapels of the same church." This
practice continued until the Greeks' numbers rose and another church in
addition to the Church of St. Blasius was allotted to them for their own
private use.
36. This incident concerns Greeks who
were allowed to celebrate their services in Latin Churches. But to show more
clearly that this does not entail the mixing of rites forbidden by the Church,
it will be appropriate to mention also Latins who for a just reason were
permitted to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and perform divine services in
Greek churches. This will not only confirm the opinion We have presented, but
will help much to show the necessity of unanimity and benevolence among
Catholics of different rites.
In White Russia, Ruthenian Catholics,
who are known as United, have many churches while the Latins have few; these
are far distant from the districts of the Latins who live among the Ruthenians.
Sometimes the Latins are deprived of Mass for a long period because their
business prevents them from travelling as far as the nearest Latin church.
Latin priests could not easily travel to the few Latin churches there to
celebrate Mass since those churches were so far from their own place of
residence. So to avoid depriving the Latins for long periods of Mass
celebrated in the Latin rite, there was only one solution: for Latin priests
to celebrate the Mass in the Latin rite for the welfare of the Latins in the
Ruthenian churches. At this point a difficulty was recognized in that Greek
altars have no holy stone, since they offer Mass on the antimensia, that is,
linens consecrated by the bishop with relics of the saints at the corners. For
this reason Latin priests were obliged to bring the holy stone with them at
great inconvenience, and risk breaking it in the course of the journey. But at
last a timely remedy was discovered and applied to all these inconveniences by
God's help. With the agreement of the Ruthenians, Latin priests were allowed
to celebrate Mass in the Latin rite in the Ruthenian churches, and on the
antimensia. This was approved more readily because Ruthenian priests who
sometimes came to say Mass in Latin churches consecrated the sacrifice on our
altar stones. This matter is treated in full in Our constitution 43, Imposito
nobis (Bullarii nostri, vol. 3).
37. The following fact is also
important. Learned men are divided as to whether the ancient practice of the
western church was to have one or more altars in basilicas. Schelestratus
declares that there was only one altar (Actor. Ecclesiae Orientalis, pt. 1,
chap. 2 de Missa Privata in Ecclesia Latina). On the other hand Cardinal Bona,
on the authority of Walfrid, chap. 4, shows that there were many altars in the
Roman basilica of St. Peter (Rerum Lyturgicar, bk. I, chap. 14, no. 3). But if
one considers the Oriental and Greek churches and basilicas, it seems evident
that there was only one altar in them, and even today this is generally the
case. This can be seen from the drawings of these churches in Du Cange,
Constantinopoli Christiana; Beveregius, ad Pandectas Canonum; and Goarius in
Euchologium Graecorum. Since in the Greek Church of St. Athanasius in Rome
there are many altars, Leo Allatius in his letter to Joannes Marinus de
Templis Graecorum recentiorum, no. 2 states with certainty that this church
has no Greek form except the Bema or enclosure which separates the main altar
from the rest of the church.
At this altar, only one Mass may be
celebrated each day. This practice of the Greeks is mentioned by Dionysius
Barsalibaeus, the Jacobite bishop of Amida, in Explanatione Missae, and by
Cyriacus, Patriarch of the Jacobites, as the Jacobite Gregorius Barhebraeus
says in his Directorio. Assemanus quotes these writers in his Biblioth.
Oriental., vol. 2, p. 184, and vol. 3, part 1, p. 248. Cardinal Bona writes on
this practice as follows: "They have a single altar in their churches, and
they consider it wrong to repeat the Sacrifice in the sanctuary on the same
day" (op. cit. chap. 14, no. 3).
Euthymius, Archbishop of Tyre and Sidon,
and Cyril, Greek Patriarch of Antioch, several times during the pontificates
of Clement XI, Benedict XIII, and Clement XII inquired whether they should
allow this practice to continue which forbade the offering of a second Mass at
the same altar on the same day. They always received the response that no
changes were to be made and the ancient rite was to be preserved entire. The
people came to believe mistakenly that the reason for not offering a second
Mass at the same altar on the same day was that the second priest to celebrate
Mass in the same vestments as the first was infringing a period of fasting. So
in Our encyclical letter to the Greek Melchite Patriarch of Antioch and the
Catholic bishops subject to him, We commanded them to inform the people that
this was an error. They were to do this, however, without changing the
practice of one priest only offering Mass on the same day at the same altar
(constitution 87, Demandatam, Bullarii Nostri, vol. 1).
38. Finally, it was custom in both the
western and the eastern church for the priests to offer Mass together with the
bishop. The evidence is collected by Christianus Lupus in the Appendix on the
Council of Chalcedon in his ad Concilia Generalia, et Provincialia, vol. 1, p.
994, of the first edition, where he interprets the words of Bassianus: "He
used to celebrate Masses with me and to communicate with me"; and by Georgius,
Lyturgiae Pontificiae, vol. 2, p. lf, and vol. 3, p. lf. The rite of
concelebration is now out of fashion in the western church, except at priestly
ordinations performed by the bishop and at episcopal consecrations where two
bishops assist the consecrating bishop. But this rite continues to thrive in
the Oriental Church, and priests often concelebrate with the bishop or with
the priest as chief celebrant. This practice is derived from the Apostolic
Constitutions, bk. 8, and the eighth Apostolic Canon. And wherever this custom
is practiced among Greeks and Orientals, it is approved and to be preserved as
We command in Our constitution Demandatam, sect. 9.
39. Some have used this Greek and
Oriental rite of concelebration as an argument for questioning whether there
is any place in their church for private Masses said by an individual priest,
since there is only a single altar in Greek churches and only one Mass is
offered at it and priests concelebrate with the bishop or a chief celebrant.
The Lutherans were careful to send the Augsburg Confession, which abolished
private Masses, to Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, for his approval and
acceptance. But since the traditional practice of private Mass in the Oriental
Church is derived from Trullan Canon 31, and defended by this canon and the
commentary on it written by Theodore Balsamon, both the rite of frequent
concelebration and the practice of private Masses have remained unharmed in
the Oriental Church. So the efforts of the Lutherans came to nothing. They
were told that the East as well as the West condemned the evil practice of men
who approached the altar with a wicked desire of obtaining offerings, but not
the actions of men who with religious piety celebrated private Masses in order
to offer to God an acceptable sacrifice. This is evident from Schelestratus,
ex Actis Ecclesiae Orientalis contra Lutheranos, chap. 1: on private Masses in
the Greek Church, towards the end. For the convenience of priests who want to
offer a private Mass, while preserving the custom of offering only one Mass at
the one altar in the church, the Greeks began to set up Paracclesias. These
are mentioned by Leo Alla ius in his letter to Joannes Morinus. Paracclesiae
are oratories beside the church in which there is an altar for the celebration
of Masses which cannot be said in the church because Mass has akeady been said
there on that day.
40. Some have with reason feared that
this practice would permanently prevent Latin priests from offering Mass in
Greek Churches, since these have only one altar which cannot be used twice on
the same day for the celebration of Mass. In that case, Latin priests could
not use the oratories for saying Mass since these were built for Greeks only.
But to dispel this fear, it can be seen that today Greek churches generally
have a second altar at which Latin priests can celebrate Mass. Goarius
describes three kinds of Greek churches in his Euchologium Graecorum. The
third kind has a second altar built, as Goarius thinks, for Latin priests, and
Schelestratus follows him in this view (p. 887).
In the Maronite and Greek churches in
Rome, besides the main altar, there are other altars at which Latin priests
say Mass. In Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no, 8-9, We deal with
the best way of treating Italian Greeks, and in this passage We forbid Latin
priests ever to celebrate Mass at the main altar in Greek churches except in a
case of absolute necessity and then only with the consent of the Greek parish
priest. We also allow the Greeks to build altars in their churches apart from
the main altar and at these, Latin priests may, if they wish, celebrate Mass.
41. The previous statements show
clearly that the Catholic Armenians and Syrians who live among the Latins in
Balsera and have no church of their own should be allowed to continue meeting
in the Latin church as they have been doing, in order to hold the holy
services in accordance with their rite. This permission is given not only
because their action does not constitute a mixture of rite which is forbidden
in the Apostolic Constitutions, but also because the situation calls for
kindness, or rather compliance with the law of equity. This demands that a
place should be gladly given to those who have no place in which to perform
what they are required by law to perform. Therefore it only remains to command
that the binding laws of love be observed and that a chapel or part of a
church be assigned to the Orientals for holding their services. All care
should be taken to hold the Latin and the Greek services at different times.
Otherwise more disputes which so plagued Our two predecessors Leo X and
Clement VII might be caused.
At that time, contrary to the argument
made at the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV that the Greeks should not
be hindered in the observance of their rites, these popes learned that certain
Latins were going to Greek churches and celebrating Mass in the Latin rite at
their altar with the design of preventing Greek priests from offering the
Sacrifice in their own rite. On several occasions Greeks were deprived of the
Sacrifice of the Mass even on feast days. "Under a strange inspiration, they
(the Latin priests) sometimes take possession of the altars of parish churches
and there, against the will of the Greeks, they celebrate Mass and other
services. The result is that the Greeks often remain without Mass to their
great annoyance on feast days and other days when they usually attend Mass."
These complaints of the Pope are contained in the document beginning
Provisionis nostrae and can be found on page 86 of the Greek Manual published
at Beneventum in 1717. We have no reason to join in their complaints. But if
We ever hear that Our Latins are preventing the Orientals at Balsera from
holding their services in the Latin churches, Our severe complaints will be
accompanied by appropriate remedies.
42. A second question in regard to
these Armenians and Syrians is whether they may use the old calendar in fixing
the date of Easter and of the other moveable feasts, or whether they should
follow the revised calendar when they hold services in the Latin churches. It
is also asked to what extent the use of the old calendar is lawful for them
and whether this decision also binds those Orientals who, because they have
only a small church which cannot hold them all, are forced to come in great
numbers to Latin churches.
43. Everyone knows the provisions of
Popes St. Pius and St. Victor and of the Council of Nicea concerning the
proper celebration of Easter. All likewise are aware that the Council of Trent
reserved to the Pope the question of revising the calendar, and that finally
the matter was resolved in all its details in the time of Pope Gregory XIII.
For this reason Bucherius writes in the preface to his Commentario de doctrina
temporum: "At the bidding of Pope Gregory XIII, Clavius has fully seen to the
definite reckoning of Easter in future years." Clavius was a Jesuit priest
with scientific talents who contributed greatly to the correction of the
calendar. The Pope also studied the calculations of Aloysius Lilius, which had
taken years to complete. Finally, after weighing all aspects of the difficulty
during many meetings and after consulting with many experts, he published in
1582 his constitution Inter gravissimas which established the regular calendar
(in veteri Bullario, vol. 1, cons. 74).
44. This papal constitution revoked the
old calendar and ordered Patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and
abbots to use the newly revised calendar. This can be seen both in the
constitution itself and in the Annals of Gregory XIII, vol. 2, p. 271. Rome
1742. But since there is no mention of Orientals in the constitution, the
question arises as to whether it applies to Orientals. This question has been
raised not only by learned men such as Azorius, Instit. Moral., vol. 1, bk. 5,
chap. 11, qu. 7; and Baldellus, Theologia Morali, vol. 1, bk. 5, disp. 41, but
it was also discussed by the famous gentlemen who met in the palace of
Cardinal Pamphilius, later Pope Innocent X, on July 4, 1631. These men
concluded that "the subjects of the four eastern patriarchates should not be
bound by new papal constitutions except in three cases: first, on the subject
of teachings of the faith; second, if the Pope mentions them expressly in his
Constitution and makes arrangements; third, it they are implicitly included in
the arrangements of the Constitution as in cases of invitation to a future
council." This resolution is reported by Verricellus, de Apostolicis
Missionibus, bk. 3, chap. 38, no. 4, and by Us in Our work on de Canonizatione
Sanct., bk. 2, chap. 38, no. 15.
45. We pass this question by since
there is no pressing need to discuss it at present. It is sufficient for Us to
point out how the Apostolic See has acted in this affair. On the evidence of
this See in earlier actions, the wisest answer it has made to the question is
that "no changes are to be made."
The Apostolic See has ordered Italian
Greeks who live among us, subject to the authority of the Latin bishops in
whose dioceses they reside, to adopt the new calendar (Etsi Pastoralis, 57,
sect. 9, no. 3f). The clergy of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary de Graphaeo
in Messana who observe the Greek rite, follow the new calendar most carefully
(constitution 81, Romana Ecclesia, sect. 1, Our Bullarii, vol. 1). Still its
adoption is not so stringently insisted on that no room is left for fairness
when serious reasons demand it. The Armenian Catholics living in Lebanon
refused to accept the Gregorian calendar and were dispensed from using it by
Pope Innocent XII.
At the Congregation of the Holy Office
on Wednesday, June 20, 1674, this decree was issued:
"There has again been mention of the
letter of the Apostolic Nuncio at Florence sent on April 10 concerning the
petitions made to him by Armenians for permission to pray for the Armenian
patriarch during Mass, to celebrate Easter and the other feasts according to
their own rite, that is, according to the old computation which was in force
before the revision of the calendar etc.... Reference was also made to the
answer of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on the matter of
praying for the Armenian Patriarch during Mass: "Let the nuncio be answered
that in this matter the Sacred Congregation abides by the decrees issued on
June 7, 1673; that is, it cannot be done and should be absolutely forbidden.
As regards the celebration of Easter and the other feasts they similarly abide
by the decrees that the Armenians in Liburnum should observe the Gregorian
Calendar." So when these Armenians refused to obey this decree, investigation
of the matter was entrusted to a special congregation of learned Cardinals.
Among these were Cardinal Joanne Franciscus Albanus, who was later elected
Pope, and Cardinal Henricus Norisius, who was famous in learned circles.
This congregation issued the following
decree on September 23, 1699, and the Pope confirmed it on the same day:
"After prolonged consideration of the subject and its many details, they
decided in accordance with the original proposals that the Armenian Catholics
living in Liburnum who have their own church could be allowed the use of the
old calendar until they are disposed to accept the full observance of the
Gregorian Calendar. This would be allowed at the good pleasure of the
Apostolic See with the further condition that they should refrain from servile
works and be required to hear Mass on the feast days of obligation in the
Gregorian calendar."
46. The Oriental Greeks were asked to
use the newly revised calendar, but this request was in vain. The articles and
conditions presented to the Ruthenians in the time of Clement VIII when a
union was effected mentioned accepting the calendar. They replied that "we
will accept the new calendar if it can be made to accord with the old" (Thomas
of Jesus, Operum, p. 329). Although there was some ambiguity in this reply, We
learn of no further steps taken in this matter, nor did the theologian
appointed to investigate the case pass any judgment on this article (op. cit.,
p. 335f).
Sometimes, however, Orientals have of
their own accord adopted the new calendar, as can be seen from the statement
of the provincial synod of the Maronites in 1736 to which We have often
referred. "We command that the Roman calendar revised by Pope Gregory XIII,
the eminent benefactor of Our people, be strictly observed in all our churches
in reckoning both fast days and feast days, whether movable or immovable. And
We order that the method of use of this calendar be taught to the boys in
every church by their teachers in addition to Church music."
But whenever the Orientals did not
accept it and there was good reason to fear riotous protests if the use of the
new calendar was imposed on them, the Apostolic See has tolerated the
observance of the ancient practice of the Orientals and Greeks in distant
places. It has done this by allowing them to follow the old calendar until a
more favorable opportunity developed for introducing the use of the newly
revised calendar. The decrees of the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith of August 22, 1625, and April 30, 1631, and the Holy Inquisition of July
18, 1613, and December 14, 1616, are in harmony with this procedure.
Sometimes, indeed, missionaries have even been allowed to follow the old
calendar while living in districts where only the old calendar was in use
(Decrees of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, April 16, 1703,
and December 16, 1704).
47. It remains to discuss the final
enquiry about fasting. Syrian and Armenian Catholics abstain from fish on fast
days in accordance with their rite. But when they see the Latins eating fish,
it is claimed that it is impossible or at least very hard for them to refrain
from fish. So the seemingly reasonable suggestion is made that missionaries
should be empowered to give them a dispensation with circumspection and
without risk of scandal, and to substitute another pious work for abstinence
from fish.
This would be an ideal place to deal
with the antiquity of fasting in the east and of how its obligations have
always been strictly observed despite their severity. To avoid excessive
length, however, We confine Ourselves to saying that the Apostolic See has
always opposed the Patriarchs whenever they wanted to relax the ancient
harshness of the fast imposed on their subjects. Peter the Maronite Patriarch
permitted the archbishops and bishops subject to him to eat meat as the laity
did although the ancient practice had them abstain from meat. He allowed his
entire people to eat fish and drink wine in Lent although this had been
forbidden to them. But Pope Paul V wrote a Brief to the Patriarch who
succeeded Peter on March 9, 1610, commanding him to restore the earlier state
of affairs by revoking the concessions of Patriarch Peter.
During Our own pontificate the
excessive good-natured laxity of Euthymius, Archbishop of Tyre and Sidon, and
of Cyril Patriarch of Antioch, towards the Greek Melchites was investigated
and condemned (constitution 87, Demandatam, sect. 6). "Judging that this
innovation and relaxation of rigorous abstinence tends to the excessive harm
of the ancient practice of the Greek churches, even though these measures have
no force without the authority of the Apostolic See, We expressly revoke them
by Our authority. We command that they should have no effect for the future
nor be implemented in any way, but that everything should be restored to its
former condition. Moreover, We order that the praiseworthy custom of your
fathers of abstaining from fish every Wednesday and Friday throughout the year
be observed in all the Patriarchate of Antioch, just as it is practiced among
the neighboring peoples of the Greek rite."
It is nonsensical to affirm that a
dispensation, or rather a general faculty of dispensing, should be granted on
the grounds that Orientals are easily tempted to eat fish themselves by the
sight of Latins eating fish on a fast day, yielding to the weakness of their
nature and not from contempt. For if this argument were at all persuasive it
would lead to an absolute mixture of rites. A further result would be that
Latins at the sight of Greeks living in ways which are forbidden to Latins
could seek a dispensation to allow them to do what they see the Greeks doing.
They would claim that they accepted the Latin rite, but that from the weakness
of their nature they could no longer observe it.
48. We thought We should explain these
matters in this encyclical letter to reveal the bases of the answers given to
the missionary who raised the questions mentioned at the beginning. But We
also wanted to make clear to all the good will which the Apostolic See feels
for Oriental Catholics in commanding them to observe fully their ancient rites
which are not at variance with the Catholic religion or with propriety. The
Church does not require schismatics to abandon their rites when they return to
Catholic unity, but only that they forswear and detest heresy. Its great
desire is for the preservation, not the destruction, of different peoples-in
short, that all may be Catholic rather than all become Latin.
We end Our letter at last, imparting to
its every reader the Apostolic Blessing.
Given at St. Mary Major, July 26, 1755,
in the fifteenth year of Our pontificate.
