Benedict XIV and His Sacramental Polity on the Eastern Churches (1740-1758), «Nicolaus - Rivista di...

ANNO XXXIX 2012 FASC. 1-2

FACOLTÀ TEOLOGICA PUGLIESEISTITUTO DI TEOLOGIA ECUMENICO-PATRISTICA “S. NICOLA”

VIA BISANZIO E RAINALDO, 15 - 70122 BARI (Italia) - Tel. 080/5235252 Fax 080/5728604

http://www.facoltateologica.ite-mail:[email protected]

RIVISTA DI TEOLOGIA ECUMENICO-PATRISTICA

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

BENEDICT XIVAND HIS SACRAMENTAL POLITYON THE EASTERN CHURCHES (1740-1758)

In the course of his pontificate, Benedict XIV dealt with many questionsconnected with the Catholic rites and the juridical values of the sacraments in asystematic manner. He carried out this work by differentiating the related topics inwhich the various disciplines had to be applied. Such were: whether the neophyteslived in a mostly Catholic environment or whether the Catholics lived in a mostlyProtestant setting, under a “heretic” ruler or under the “Turkish” domination; whetherthe Catholics of the Eastern rite were subject to a bishop of Latin rite or in contactwith Eastern Orthodox Churches. His interventions that regulated the rites andsacraments on behalf of the Eastern Catholics are part and parcel of thiscomprehensive whole.

Pope Benedict XIV’s interventions on the topic of the sacraments can be dividedinto three typological parts. In first place we have the regulatory norms, whichconcern the individual aspects of the sacraments or deal with the solution of doubtsabout them and with specific cases of a regulatory nature. In second place, the Popeoften coupled his legislations with interventions that we might call of an instructivenature, characterized by a distinctive pastoral concern, which was meant to explainand “clarify” the “simple letter” of the law. Finally, Prospero Lambertini, even aspope, was not afraid to intervene as a scholar in the open debate concerning thematter of the sacraments by way of his erudite writing.

The main documents dealing mostly with the sacraments for Eastern Catholicsare the following: Etsi Pastoralis of May 2, 1742 dedicated to the sacraments of theGreeks in Italy; Demandatam of December 24, 1743 for the Greek-Melkites; EoQuamvis of May 4, 1745, addressed to the missionaries working for the conversionof the Copts of Egypt. To these documents we should add the decree concerning thedoubts connected with the marriage of a deacon who had been given the sacramentof order as a child, Anno Vertente, of June 19, 1750.

Internal references dictate that we read the norms concerning Eastern Catholicsalongside the apostolic constitutions on the sacraments for neophytes and Catholicsin their relationship with infidels and heretics due to their obvious and explicitconnections between the two groups of intervention. Belonging to the second groupare the important intervention Inter Omnigenas, of February 2, 1744 concerning the

117

sacraments of the Catholics that were subject to the Ottoman domination in Serbiaand Albania; Omnium Sollicitudinum, of the year 1744, concerning the Chinese andMalabarese rites; In Suprema, of January 16, 1743, concerning the marriage ofneophytes converted from Judaism; and Cum Venerabilis, of January 27, 1757,concerning the faculty of dispensation in the case of the marriage of neophytes. Aseparate group consists of various letters that deal with the problem of regulating thebaptisms of Jewish children and adults and the marriages contracted while still livingin the Jewish faith: Postremo Mense of February 28, 1747; Apostolici MinisteriiMunus of September 16, 1747; Singularis Nobis of February 9, 1748 concerning themarriage of a Jewish neophyte and a converted Calvinist woman; Probe TeMeminisse of December 15, 1751. Finally we should add also Magnae NobisAdmirationis of June 29, 1751 concerning the marriages between Catholics andheretics1.

The task of regulating the matter of the sacraments for the Eastern CatholicChurches is undertaken by the Pope in the three most important apostolicconstitutions already quoted, in the reformation of the Euchologion [=Sacramentary]for the Eastern Churches, in a treatise dedicated to the sacraments, originallyconceived as part of the De Synodo Dioecesana [=Diocesan Synod], published onlylater as the Letter De Sacramentis [=The Sacraments]2. Our study will concentrate onthis letter, by highlighting some specific contents and elements from an overallreading.

The interventions on the sacraments of the Eastern Catholics are part of anoverall system, as is detailed by the attached table which collects the wholelegislation of Benedict XIV on the sacraments contained in the first volume of bulls3.

The three apostolic constitutions addressed to the Eastern Catholics deal with the

118


1 For the decisions of Pope Benedict XIV, we refer to the legislation published in the MagnumBullarium Benedicti Papae XIV, Vol. I-II, accurate reprint of Graz 1966 of vol. I-IV of theCollection of Bulls in the Roman edition respectively of the years 1746, 1749, 1753, 1757. Theentire collection of this legislative activity concerning the sacraments is the subject of thecontribution “Sempre tenendo saldo il legame con la Chiesa madre e maestra”:Sacramenti ealterità da Paolo III a Benedetto XIV. Spunti di riflessione, in Atti in onore di Adriano Prosperi,Pisa 2010, to which I would like to refer.

2 The manuscripts of the letter De Sacramentis were kept in part in the Secret Vatican Archive(from now on referred to as ASV), later moved to the Apostolic Vatican Library, and in part in theLibrary of the University of Bologna (Mss. 268, vol. I-IV). Based on the ASV manuscripts, theBenedicti XIV Papae Opera inedita, Primum publicavit Franciscus Heiner, Freiburg of Brisgovia1904.

3 Our choice concerns only the first volume since it was published according to the index andthe selection set down by the pope himself. See Ch. LEFEBVRE, Le premier volume du Bullairede Benoît XIV constitue t-il une Collection Authentique?, in L’Année canonique 17 (1973) 615-621.

4 Raccolta di alcune notificazioni, editti e istruzioni pubblicate dall’Eminentissimo eReverendissimo signor Cardinale Prospero Lambertini, arcivescovo di Bologna e principe diS.R.E. per buon governo della sua diocesi, I-V, Archiepiscopal Press, Romae 1742; the diocesanpublication was followed by a Roman edition and a Latin translation (Institutiones EcclesiasticaeProsperi Lambertini S.R.E. cardinalis archiepiscopi bononiensis, postea Benedicti decimiquartiPontificis Optimi Maximi, quas latine reddidit Ildephonsus a Sancto Carolo Scholarum Piarumrector collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide, Romae 1747. I have analyzed the documentation inBologna in Lambertini a Bologna 1731-1740, in Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia fasc. 2(2007) 417-461, to which I will go back.

whole sacramental structure. All other papal interventions which deal with a singlesacrament, or are about specific abuses that are connected with the situations of theold Christian world, deal mostly with the sacrament of orders, crowning point andcenter of the Church’s unity, and with the pair Eucharist-penance.

This formulation has a definite foundation and continuity that goes back to theyears that preceded Benedict’s pontificate, as it emerges from the comparison withthe decisions taken during the period when he was the archbishop of Bologna4. The107 notifications for the diocese, from the point of view of their contents, can beclassified, with some repetitions, into a first group of regulations about the reform ofthe customs of the clergy or of the religious sisters; a second group of norms aboutthe sacraments; and finally, a third group of instructions about rites and practices.The first are of a juridical character and the last of pastoral nature, while the secondgroup, dedicated to sacramental matters, act as a suture, so to say, connecting hisinterventions of a regulatory nature and those of a didactic one. Prescriptive texts arenot lacking, and in some passages they tend to assume a more colloquial tone.

Just as was the case when he was head of the diocese of Bologna, the normsissued by Lambertini as pope were only in part prompted by concrete cases; most ofthe times they were meant to develop an overall and multifaceted plan of regulatingthe sacraments. If in fact, some regulatory interventions are occasional in character,such as a reply to some concrete known abuses or a response to questions frommissionaries, religious superiors or bishops, for most of the cases, the apostolicconstitutions reveal an intentionally devised plan that follows clear lines ofinterpretation of the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, concerning the majorpost-conciliar questions (and indeed the administration of the sacraments belongs tothis section), the plan of the pope, who was an expert in canon law, reveals itself tobe well organized. During his episcopacy and papacy, he went back many times tothe subject of benefits, the norms concerning pastoral visitation, the duty of residencyof priests; while the formation of seminarians is intimately connected with his ideaof church government. All of this constitutes the selected topic of his firstinterventions in the beginning of his pontificate, and were collected in texts as a setprogram. A large sub-group of apostolic constitutions concerns the sacraments in amore direct manner.

119

BENEDICT XIV AND HIS SACRAMENTAL POLIITY

120


Baptism Confirmation Orders Eucharist/Mass Penance Anointing Marriageof the sick

Ubi Primum XAd Apostolicae XAuget XMatrimonia XSatis vobis compertum X

Etsi Pastoralis X X X X XE Sublimi XEo Quamvis X X X XAd Apostolicae XCum Illud XCum ad infrascriptam XObsurdescit XDemandatam X X XTam praeclaram XAvendovi Noi XQuanta Cura XPro eximia XExponi Nobis XCertiores effecti XQuaemadmodum precesInter omnigenas X X XCum semper XDilectus filius XSingularem XMatrimonii XNimiam licentia XRedditae Nobis XLaetiora XAd passionis XSacramentum XPastor bonus XIn Apostolicae XApostolica indulta XIn suprema XApostolici muneris XCum multorum XNullis verbisSuprema omniumOmnium sollicitudinum X X X X

The pope carried out his interventions on specific aspects of the sevensacraments, which he analyzed, accepted or rejected in individual cases of the LatinCatholic tradition, through comparison and analysis which took into account thecanons of the Eastern Catholic tradition as well as the debates with the Protestants,who had made of the sacraments and of the hierarchical structure, which was basedon it, the object of a precise opposition. Finally, while going over the sources of theEastern rites, the pope kept in mind also some cases that the Catholic Church hadencountered during the course of her worldwide expansion.

Between 1753 and 1754, Benedict XIV wrote five volumes, whose preparatorymaterials were not published in the second edition of the De Synodo [=The Synod]that came out in 1755. On the basis of archival research and of the discovery ofdocuments of ancient liturgies and ritual collections, with the help of severalcollaborators, the pope prepared a vast addition to the De Synodo, in which a lot ofmaterial had already been published concerning Greek Italians living in diocesesruled by Latin bishops. The unpublished materials, grouped together in five books,were later organized as a papal Letter to be published separately as a commentary onthe Euchologion. In the Letter, the analysis was to include customs, abuses andtraditions of the Melkite, Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian and RuthenianChurches; inevitably, the entire research into the sacraments that the pope had carriedout during his lifetime, ever since his first experiences working in diocesan offices,all through his government of the diocese and up to the years of his pontificate, wasreflected in this work. The need to clarify the relationship between the Latin andEastern rites convinced Benedict XIV to deal in an organic fashion with therelationships and correspondences between the Catholic Latin liturgy and theCatholic Eastern liturgy.

A similar need of clarification in the rites and sacramental practices wasmanifested also in the work of editing and publishing the liturgical texts which thecongregation of Propaganda Fide and other smaller commissions had amended sincethe second half of the 17th century, during the pontificate of Urban VIII, a workwhich Benedict XIV had resumed with renewed vigor and carried to completion5.Between 1748 and 1755, the pope ordered the completion of the work of editing theGreek Euchologion, which was later published in 1756. A prior Letter (Ex quoprimum) was coupled with the publication of this ritual for the Eastern Churches anda second more detailed one (De Sacramentis) was supposed to explain all thesacraments for the Eastern Churches. It was left unfinished on account of his death6.

121


5 Of this work of overall editing of the Coptic, Armenian, Ruthenian, Maronite, Syrian, Slavic,Greek and Chaldean liturgical books there remains a trace in the materials published by Heiner, inthe section titled De ritibus. See Opera inedita, III, pp. 193-455.

6 Some of the materials prepared for the revision of the Euchologion and the Greek ritual inASV, Benedict XIV Fund , vol. 25, Riti greci e eucologio, and vol. 26. The first letter of

The method employed in the letter De Sacramentis

The style of clarification of each sacrament followed in the Letter “DeSacramentis”, offered an initial brief presentation of the Latin regulations, then anexposition of the Eastern regulations in the points that differed from the Latin one;finally the author compared the points of dissension or the ritual differences in orderto set down the legitimacy of a regulation other than the Latin one or the necessity toeliminate some of the differences. Lambertini proceeded by way of reference to priorstudies in a composite manner: his work of erudition therefore originated by anaccumulation of material, through a work of card indexing of old sources (post-apostolic and patristic), conciliar and pontifical decisions, the opinions oftheologians or canonists. From this there followed the frequent references, within thetext, to the instructions for the Bologna diocese of the years of his episcopacy (1731-1740), to the two treatises De Festis [=About the Feasts] and De sacrificio Missae[=About the sacrifice of the Mass]7 (1740 -1745), and to the work De Synodo8. The

122


explanations and accompaniment of the Eucology, Ex quo primum or Epistola prima adArchiepiscopos, Episcopos, aliosque Ritus Graeci Ecclesiasticos, Saeculares et Regulares,gratiam & communionem Sedis Apostolicae habentes had been published on March 1, 1756, MBRvol. IV, pp. 365-403. In the letter of April 7, 1756 to Cardinal de Tencin, Benedict XIV mentionedthe editing of the Greek Euchologion as a necessary work “because the Orthodox had printed itwith many mistakes. The work had begun during the pontificate of Urban VIII; then it had beenput aside. We have summed it up and the editing has been carried out during a period of manyyears. The printing house of de Propaganda Fide published the entire edited Euchologion. In orderto inform the public about the editing that was carried out and the labor involved, we thought itbest to write a first letter, where everything is explained in detail; with a second letter, if God willgrant us life and health, the entire task will be completed”. See Le lettere di Benedetto XIV al card.De Tencin, by E. MORELLI, 3 vols., Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome 1955-1965-1984, III,p. 342. See also the testimony of the letter to Canon Peggi, F.X. Kraus, Briefe Benedicts XIV anden canonicus Francesco Peggi in Bologna (1727-1758), Freiburg i.B.-Tübingen 1884, p. 115,where he mentioned “the two labors […] about the sacraments, whose use in the Eastern Churchis in need of new regulations… or explanations”; in 1756, still to Peggi, F.X. Kraus, BriefeBenedicts XIV, op. cit., III, p. 120, Benedict XIV spoke of a next letter being prepared “which willspeak about the same Euchologion, and will contain what relates to the matter and form of thesacraments in the Eastern Church”.

7 The work Santo sacrificio della Messa was published initially in Bologna in 1740 (by theLonghi printing house), it was translated into Latin in the Padua edition of 1745 (with funds fromthe seminary at the Manfré house), and finally translated back into Italian from the 1745 editionin Padua in 1747. It belongs to a first phase of a historical-liturgical research with the twoAnnotazioni sopra le feste di nostro Signore e della Beatissima Vergine… and Annotazioni sopragli atti d’alcuni santi de’ quali si celebra l’Offizio e la Messa, and was revised, updated and editedin some sections on the occasion of the Latin translation of 1745.

8 For the reconstruction of the treatise on the synod, see my intervention “Acciò i vescovi latinisiano bene informati di tutto”: la seconda edizione del De Synodo dioecesana di Benedetto XIV,

composition of the Letter “De Sacramentis”, on the basis of some internal references,dates back to the years 1753-1754.

In other words, the Letter “De Sacramentis” is the presentation, in argumentativefashion, of the regulations issued by the pontifical constitutions by which the biblicaland patristic antecedents were made known and their theological and canonicalfoundations were given. Each decision was thus dissected, explained and justified ineach of its individual enunciations. The simple laws, in order to be understood andrightly interpreted, demanded this prior exegesis and manifested the type of authorityupon which they were founded. The holy pontiff gave an account of his choices9.

The author worked in a gradual and painstaking manner by way of anexamination of the validating sources of the liturgy, the common attestations of localchurches, conciliar and papal teaching, thus justifying the choices made by theRoman congregation for the correction of the books of the Eastern Church that hadbeen operating during his pontificate, and the constitutions Etsi pastoralis,Demandatam and Eo quamvis. When the list of sources was not sufficient to provethat a particular ritual was sound or that it could be changed, the author limitedhimself to expounding the most probable theological and canonical opinion. If anagreement on a specific point did not exist or could not easily be reached, the authoroffered the various opinions and then proceeded to present his own, by differentiatingbetween the privately expressed opinions and the papal decisions.

Above all, this method was not limited to a mere presentation, but representedrather a precise system of authoritative principles from which to draw logically somedefinite criteria. Lambertini in fact adopted an orderly combination of criteria inorder to establish whether and upon which foundation it was possible to maintain or,on the contrary, whether it would be necessary to eliminate a disciplinary difference

123


in Cristianesimo nella storia 28 (2007/3) 543-608. The De Synodo first edition was printed withfunds from the liturgical academy of Coimbra, Rome 1748, through the Nicola and Marco PaglianiBrothers (Libri octo, nunc primum editi ad usum Academiae liturgicae Conimbricensi, vol. XII);there followed the Roman edition by Komarek, also in 1748; the edition of Ferraria in 1753, by G.Manfré. In the letter of September 22, 1745, Lettere di Benedetto XIV, III, p. 275, Lambertiniannounced the De Synodo, “prepared by us when we were in Bologna, and completed andexpanded during my pontificate”. The second edition, re-edited and doubled in size, came out inSeptember in Rome, printed by Giovanni G. Salomoni: it was subdivided into 13 books andcontained an opening dedication to Maria Teresa of Austria; see the letter of September 24, 1755to Tencin, Lettere di Benedetto XIV, III, Ibid. p. 107. The Benedict XIV’s fund donated to theInstitute of Sciences, later BUB, vol. 268, contains the “Italian originals of the Latin additions tothe work De Synodo dioecesana made by Pope Benedict XIV himself.

9 This problem, which would deserve further study, was in part dealt with by P. PRODI, Notesulla genesi del diritto nella Chiesa post-tridentina, in Legge e Vangelo. Discussione su una leggefondamentale per la Chiesa, Paideia, Brescia 1972, pp. 191-2323; for the rational demonstrationof its juridical tradition, see the Introduction of the same author in Lettere di Benedetto XIV almarchese Magnani, by P. PRODI, M.T. FATTORI, Rome 2010.

124


between the Eastern Catholic observance and the Latin one. Each aspect of thesacrament was filtered through a first level, namely the presence of confirmations inthe ancient sources and documents; then the verification of conciliar and papalauthorities; and finally the opinions of theologians and canonists. Such acombination of criteria did not pretend to solve all the cases that might arise later on,but it tended indeed to propose a method.

The verification of the oldest sources was intended to establish the presence ofprecise ritual and liturgical systems found in the Eastern Ieratika and Euchologia.Such verification Lambertini carried out mostly from learned authors of the Latinculture and language, not directly the sources of the Eastern and Greek world. Wherethere existed trustworthy testimonies, the antiquity of the liturgical customs had forthe author a decisive normative value10. Although he had a limited awareness of thedistance between the liturgical regulations of the first Christian centuries and thesubsequent traditions that had become norms in the Latin and Eastern Churches,Pope Lambertini systematically applied a leading principle in the theology of theyears after the Council of Trent, first proposed by the Dominican Melchior Cano inhis De locis theologicis [=Theological sources]. According to Cano, historicalveracity was the necessary condition for any theological proof; it was based on theauthentic value of the text. Only when the Church pronounced a formal teaching, wasthe historical demonstration no longer necessary11. Lambertini made his own andapplied systematically this criterion in his evaluation of the liturgical practices.

The second level of authorities was constituted by patristic and conciliar sources,which were verified also through texts of ecclesiastical history, on the publicationsof the Church Fathers, on conciliar acts and decisions. In this area, the author wouldassess the range and dissemination of a custom, whether it was valid only in oneparticular church, for most of the churches, or whether it had been approved by theuniversal Church.

A third level was applied through a comparison between the Eastern rites and theoldest and most attested uninterrupted Latin practices. In this way, the sacramentalpractices showed substantial similarities that could hide behind apparent diversitiesof formulations.

10 Ed. Heiner, in chapter 5, Delle oblazioni o sieno ostie maggiori e minori che nella Messa siconsacrano dai sacerdoti greci e dell’oblazione diaconale, pp. 275-277; the research on the mostancient liturgies of the Roman Church, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic Mass is summed up inNo. 2 of chapter 13, Della commemorazione del romano pontefice nella Messa, pp. 313-314,where the work of philological reconstruction of the text was based on the publication of anancient code carried out by “Lutheran” Flacco Illirico.

11 The De locis theologicis was published posthumously in Salamanca in 1563; the theologianfrom Salamanca lived between 1509 and 1560; see J.M. de BUJANDA, La censure ecclésiastiquesur les oeuvres historiques, in Nunc alia tempora, alii mores. Storici e storia in età postridentina,Atti del convegno internazionale (Torino, 24-27 settembre 2003), by M. FIRPO, Olschki, Florence2005, pp. 268-269.

According to a fourth level, an ancient practice could have undergonemodifications caused by a decision of a Roman pope. In this area, the choices ofBenedict XIV were in continuity with the decisions concerning the Greek Italians ofClement VIII, the Instruction promulgated in 1595, and the attempted reformation ofthe liturgical books carried out under Urban VIII. It was the role of the Romanpontiffs in fact to apply “with appropriate decisions all the possible helps to thebishops who had appealed to the apostolic see as teacher and center of unity”12. Aconfirmation of this was the letters, decrees and constitutions, the bulls and the briefsof the popes that filled the libraries and the archives of the Vatican. To this normativedeposit Benedict XIV himself had referred in his decisions, which were takenaccording to criteria of continuity and were the result “not of our mind, but of ourresolve to keep always before our eyes what has been set down by our predecessors”.Precisely this continuity of action and choices was an important and uncontrovertedproof of the solicitudes of the Holy See in doing what is in her power in order to leadthe souls on the way to heaven”. The Roman pontiffs reserved to themselves somedecisions in response to requests from the various shepherds of the Churches;however, the Roman authority prevailed also on account of its reasonableness,inasmuch as it proved its equanimity and fairness in resolving controversies anddoubts.

Finally, the last criterion consisted in the research of the opinions of theologiansor in the comparison among the most accredited schools. This criterion was valid inthe absence of “the Church’s decision”13. In this context, although opting for oneparty, Lambertini gives up his role of pope to take up the role of a private expert.

The work of research carried out by Lambertini on the sacraments was nothistorical in the proper sense of the term according to modern sciences. It was basedrather on a reading of the historical sources, which, however, were used, with aconcrete and practical theology, for the purpose of demonstrating the original aspectsof the Christian sacraments, immune from contaminations with pagan rites, lay orheretical practices. In other words, he used history as an apologetic instrument.However, we cannot go into detailing each individual error or mistaken interpretationthat Lambertini identified in one or another aspect of the sacramental ritual, but it isinteresting to know the reasons that inspired his analysis and comparison14.

125


12 See De Synodo, book XIII, paragraph 17 No. 9.13 Ed. Heiner, Title V, chapter 2, No. 8, p. 421: the criterion emerges from the comparison

between the indissolubility of marriage in the Latin practice and the justification of the separationin case of adultery in the Greek practice.

14 Lambertini’s work contains the limitations of an incomplete understanding of the essentialcharacters of the early Christian liturgy, which he considers on the level of the pastoral andnormative revision in view of the sacramental concerns of the present. An interpretation in termsof historical aspects of his liturgical works would allow us to clarify better some passages: thetreatise on the Sacrificio della Messa appears to be dedicated to follow and simplify the works of

The history of the Church, as the Letter argues, contributed to the interpretationof the “simple” decisions, allowing the correct historical understanding of texts andcanons. The “sacred history” established a connection between the historical researchand the hagiographic one which had its meeting point precisely in the liturgy15.During Lambertini’s period, liturgy was an open field for debates. On the one hand,there were movements that criticized the existing practices in the name of fidelity tothe early Christian centuries, whose liturgy the proponents wanted to restore; on theother hand, there were those who demanded a simplification of a ritual that hadaccumulated decorative external contrivances with detriment to the interior aspectand understanding of the Scripture; moreover, there were those who opted for apurification and rationalization of elements that had turned into superstitiouspractices, as well as those who considered any change an undue innovation of a“tradition” that should be understood and accepted in its entirety16. It is within thiscontext that Benedict’s XIV’s research on the sacraments finds its place.

Lambertini dealt with the problem of the sacraments in keeping with his generalformulation of the treatise on the synod, namely by avoiding a systematicconfrontation about the great questions underlying the individual concrete problemsof his time. Free from the polemical spirit that emerges from the reflections on thesacraments of the Eastern rites, he avoided the questions altogether and the verydogmatic controversies not because he did not have an opinion on the matter or toevade difficult arguments, but, one might say, in order not to put into question themain objective of his interventions, intent as he was on resolving the individualspecific conflicts with equanimity. He remained firmly anchored to the purpose ofunraveling the thorny knot by keeping his distance from the subject in order toembrace the appropriate positions most in keeping with the custom of the universalChurch and the previous Roman decisions. The final objectives of the normativerevision coincide with a general plan of reform of the rites, liturgies and sacramentalpractices, a plan which, from a negative point of view, was aimed at eliminatingconfusions and inconsistencies, which caused internal conflicts in the ecclesialorganization, and false rites or doubts that deprived the Church of credibility, and, onthe positive side, of reaching a level of purity and clear elegance in the external cult.

126


the liturgists of the XVII century, among which, in a number a quotations, there stands outCardinal Giovanni Bona (1609-1674): Libri duo rerum liturgicarum, Romae 1671, and Desacrificio Missae tractatus asceticus, Romae 1658. See the evaluation of F. CABROL, Benoît XIV,in Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, vol. XII/1, Paris 1925, col. 771-775.

15 S. DITCHFIELD, “Historia magistra sanctitatis?” The Relationship between Historiographyand Hagiography in Italy after the Council of Trent (1516-1742 CA.), in Nunc alia tempora aliimores, op. cit., pp. 3-23.

16 L. BRANDOLINI, Benedetto XIV di fronte ad alcuni movimenti riformistico-liturgici del secoloXVIII, in Ephemerides liturgicae 88 (1974) 447-470.

Systematic presentation of the sacraments for the Eastern Catholics

The hierarchical system of the Church, according to Lambertini, is based on thesacraments: the central position of the sacrament of order, in a direct relationshipbetween Christ and the priesthood, was the basis of a precise ritual hierarchy whoselaws guided the religious life of the faithful. The sacrament of baptism was theessential and unique initiation, which imprinted in the soul the character and couldwork independently from the will of the faithful. To baptism was connected thesacrament of confirmation, as the complement of baptism itself, inasmuch asbetween the two the same natural separation (and distinction) should be maintainedas between birth and growth.

At the center of the religious life and of the heart of the priestly ministry was thepair Eucharist-sacrament of reconciliation, whose unity was justified by the personalsanctification of the faithful. The commandment of receiving Holy Communionduring paschal time and to go to confession before communion in case of mortal sinhad been categorically reaffirmed by Canon 21 Omnis utriusque sexus, depoenitentiis et remissionibus [=Each and both sexes, about penance and remission ofsin] of the Fourth Lateran Council and repeated at the Council by Trent, session 13,chapter 7, De Eucharistia [=The Eucharist]17.

The anointing of the sick concluded the cycle of the sacraments aimed at thesanctification of believers assuming an unexpectedly important role, while in thesacrament of matrimony, confirmed in its form by the Council of Trent, was at oddswith civil ceremonies, family traditions, and local customs, often reflecting paganrites18.

Benedict XIV’s analysis set down explicitly the distinction between sacramentalacts and ritual acts: the former were rigidly examined according to the five criteriaspelled out above; the latter could be admissible in some cases and in others theywere to be revised or eliminated, but, at any rate, they did not require the same strict

127


17 The Eucharist has not only the “power to sanctify” as do the other sacraments, but containsthe “author of holiness” itself. See Ed. HEINER, Title II, De Eucharistia et sacrificio Missae, inchapter 1, No. 1, p. 254. For a deeper understanding see P. PRODI, L’istituto della penitenza: nodistorici. I am grateful to the author for allowing me to consult his book, before its being published;it was presented as a dissertation at the congress of moral theology of the school of theology of theEmilia-Romagna region, Bologna, September 22-23, 2009. For an analysis of the Letter on thesacraments of baptism and confirmation, Eucharist and the Mass see M.T. FATTORI, Chiesa latinae rito orientale nel De Synodo dioecesana di Benedetto XIV, op. cit.

18 See D. LOMBARDI, Matrimoni di antico regime, Il Mulino, Bologna 2001. Also useful is Id.,Storia del matrimonio dal Medioevo a oggi, Il Mulino, Bologna 2008. For the debate onmatrimony see S. SEIDEL MENCHI, D. QUAGLIONI, Matrimoni in dubbio. Unioni controverse enozze clandestine in Italia dal XVI al XVIII secolo. I processi matrimoniali degli archiviecclesiastici italiani, Il Mulino, Bologna 2001.

normative control. Tradition, custom and the intention of the minister, in addition tothat of the faithful, permitted a distinction of the legitimate acts from the illegitimateones in order to avoid inconsistencies, since “it was not proper that a sacramentinstituted by Christ should be subjected to an arbitrary ceremony, albeit of adevotional nature”19. Since, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, thesacraments combine both regulations and teaching, each practice was examinedcarefully, under the penalty of heresy and the opening of an inquiry about whether“the sacrament lacked the appropriate credibility” or was abused20. There existedmoreover an intermediate range of ceremonies related to the sacraments, namelyritual customs which contained non-sacramental purifications and practices thatprevented the faithful from turning to the sacraments in special circumstances.Lambertini’s examination distinguished between rites based on ancient traditions andrites that expressed a “superstitious” intention. He did not grant any value to thoserites that claimed to have a relationship with the “substance” of the sacrament, evenif founded on ancient traditions.

The Eastern tradition was placed in a parallel position vis-à-vis the Latin one, butit was considered a counterpart which confirmed the Catholic discipline in the three-sided comparison with the symbolic aspects that the reformed Protestant ecclesialcommunities also maintained21. The Council of Trent’s decree emphasized the anti-Protestant aspects of the definition of sacrament and this was reflected in the viewabout the sacraments of the Eastern Churches. Since the Orthodox Eastern traditionswere known to Lambertini through the filter of Catholic authors and rarely fromdirect sources, the pope quoted both the controversial Catholic authors and Protestanttheologians. The synods and the councils of the Eastern Catholic Churches occupiedan intermediate less authentic area. Their authority, contested on various levels, hadreceived confirmation from the Holy See. As example, we may consider the case ofthe Synod of Zamość for the Ruthenian Church, the Council of Mount Lebanon forthe Maronite Church and in addition, the Synod of Diamper, held in 1599 with thepurpose of Latinizing the Syrian community of St. Thomas from the liturgical anddogmatic point of view, which Benedict XIV used as a source to establish thediscipline of the Syrian-Nestorian Christian Orthodox22.

128


19 Ed. HEINER, Title III, De Poenitentia et Extrema Unctione, in chapter 8, No. 9, p. 371, whichforbade to anoint the faithful, either healthy or sick, in a superficial manner out of simple devotionand as protection against sin and sickness in general.

20 Ibidem, p. 372.21 Ibidem, in chapter 1, No. 5, p. 329 we find a confirmation in the Eastern practice of what is

prescribed about the obligation of the auricular confession by the Catholic Church and “keepsintact the perfect coherence between the Western Church and the Eastern Church as regards theobligation of the penitent to reveal all sins to the confessor.

22 The synod of Diamper, celebrated by Archbishop Aleixo de Meneses of Goa, aimed atestablishing the Latin discipline among the Syrian Christian of St. Thomas, who constituted an

In the course of his presentation, the author offered an important indication of anoverall organization of the hierarchical structure of the sacraments:

There are some sacraments that, for their validity, require an act on the part of therecipient, such as penance and matrimony; for this very reason they cannot be givento infants or the insane. Some other sacraments do not require an action on the part ofthe recipient, such as baptism, confirmation and orders, since by divine dispositionthey possess a special spiritual power; because this infused natural power exists firstbefore the act, unlike an acquired one, and can subsist without it, these sacraments canvalidly be given to infants and the insane23.

This carried with it some concrete consequences: an insane man could not beordained, neither could an infant or a person whose will was opposed or not madeexplicit, because the sacrament of order carried with it a power over the mysticalbody and this in turn demanded an explicit consent on the part of the one who tookon the pastoral care of souls; the absence of an explicit consent implied theunlawfulness and invalidity of its being conferred, not so much as the character wasconcerned, but as it carried with it the care of souls which could not be undertakenexcept by one who would give his consent, “as he would be contracting a spiritualmarriage with the Church”; or the obligation of the ecclesiastical celibacy and theother obligations connected with the clerical state. Baptism, on the other hand, as asacrament which imprinted the character in the soul, carried with it the objectiveaction of grace even when the subject was opposed. Therefore the act of baptism,even when it was given to adults under threat of death or with coercion, to childrenagainst the will of the parents, was illicit but valid, provided the form and the matterof the sacrament were respected and the one conferring the baptism had the intentionof baptizing. Grace operated independently from the assent and the free acceptanceof the one receiving baptism, which therefore did not constitute an essential elementof the sacrament’s validity. The act of baptizing was irreversible, and to confer

129


outpost of the Syrian-Eastern Church of Persia (later of Mesopotamia) on the coast of Malabar.Meneses wanted to eliminate every trace of a presumed nestorianism: see P. ARANHA, Sacramentio saṃskārāḥ? L’illusione dell’accomodatio nella controversia dei riti malabarici, in Discipline eprassi sacramentali in contesti extra-europei, XVI-XVIII secolo, by M.T. FATTORI, inCristianesimo nella storia 31 (2010/2), about to be published. The synod was known to Lambertinithrough the work of Father Johannes Facundi Raulin, Historia ecclesiae malabaricae cumDiamperitana synodo apud indos nestorianos, St. Thomae christianos nuncupatos, coacta abAlexio De Menezes… nunc primum e lusitano in latinum versa cui accedunt, cum liturgiamalabarica, tum dissertationes varia…, Romae 1745 (in the press of Jerome Mainardi), p. 145.

23 Ed. HEINER, Title IV, chap. 8, No. 11-13, Del titolo dell’ordinazione…, pp. 403-405. Thisdistinction was shared by a great number of authors, beginning with St. Thomas, Summa, Book IV,question 33, up to the theologians and canonists before and contemporary with Benedict XIV(Card. Gotti, Berti, Giovanni Andrea, Fagnano, Pirhing, Fermosini, etc.).

baptism, even in an illicit manner, meant that the baptized person was incorporatedinto the canonical system which was the Church at the time.

For the other sacraments, matters were different. In the case of ordination of adeacon, who was between seven and fourteen years of age, as was customary amongthe Copts, Benedict XIV had prescribed what was dictated by the practice of theRoman tribunals24: the deacon was not required or bound to recite the divine office.There was lacking the free consent to the choice of life and to the undertaking of theobligations connected with the clerical state; therefore the sacrament was valid(provided it was conferred with the necessary form, matter and intention of thebishop), but it was illicit. As a result such deacons were not bound to observe the vowof chastity and other obligations/vows which would be undertaken in suchcircumstances, since a free and explicit will had not been expressed. Once the boyhad reached the age of reason, he would have to be interrogated: if he consented toremain in the state of orders, he would be obliged to follow the law of chastity; if hedid not give his consent, he could return to the lay state. The pope concluded hisreasoning, rejecting a similarity with an illicit but valid baptism because:

The infant, after receiving the sacrament of orders, was not bound to the burdensconnected with the order, such as continence or the daily recitation of the canonicalhours… since there was a big difference between baptism and the sacrament of orders;indeed, the observance of the law of the gospel follows naturally from baptism, whilethe observance of celibacy is only imposed by a positive law tied to the sacred orders;indeed, since anyone who attains the use of reason has had sufficient informationabout the law of the gospel, and is therefore bound to receive baptism, while no one isabsolutely bound to receive the sacred orders25.

A great difference existed between the two situations: baptism, even if receivedagainst one’s will, obliged in a “natural” way to observe the law of the gospel, whilethe ecclesiastical state could be accepted and undertaken only by the free will. Theneeded freedom to ask and receive baptism, as indispensable part for the validity ofthe sacrament, was deliberately set aside by the pope.

130


24 See Eo quamvis, MBR book I, pp. 511-522; the assent and the will become important inmatters of the baptism of adult Jewish persons, see Postremo mense, MBR book II, pp. 286-237;Probe te meminisse, ibidem, pp. 417-442; about the Roman controversial trends, see M.CAFFIERO, Battesimi forzati: storie di ebrei, cristiani e convertiti nella Roma dei papi, Viella,Rome 2004, pp. 1-100.

25 Ed. HEINER, Title IV, chapter 8, No. 13, p. 405.

The authority of the minister and the multiplication of grace

The purpose of the sacramental system was to offer a multiple opportunity ofdivine grace which avoided superstitious practices or the superimposition of spuriouselements to the substance of the sacraments, which should remain untouched.Lambertini, with the aid of the Roman congregations, wanted to act so as to allowthe Eastern liturgical customs that were confirmed by ancient and proven authorities,to eliminate any practice which would include a more or less marked distance fromCatholic dogmas, and to avoid superstitions and abuses in the sacraments. Thetheological heritage handed down by the scholastic school permitted the breakingdown of the sacraments into sections and summaries of gestures, use of words, oils,water, bread and wine: on this analytical possibility Lambertini based hisinterventions in order to activate comparisons, selections and eliminations of specificportions of the ritual by reducing all actions within the sacramental number seven orclassifying them into devotional or non-sacramental practices. His analysisproceeded regularly according to an order that first examined form, matter andminister of each sacrament; then it went on to study, case by case, the difficulties inaccepting both the Eastern and the Latin discipline, and finally rejected “particularabuses”. The synthesis of the argumentation permits us in some sacraments todevelop his analysis that alternated continuously between rigor and clarity of thenormative datum and the necessity to eliminate the scruples caused in the mostdelicate consciences by the incongruities and difficulties that scholastic theologyraised about the efficacy of the signs. Lambertini embraced the considerations ofCardinal Giovanni Bona26 “when he writes that ‘one should not criticize an ancientrite that was not according to our own on account of the difficulties that Scholastictheologians raised against it: Hic ego non disputo, sed constanter assero, hunc fuisseEcclesiae morem per plura saecula, qui in Ecclesia Orientali adhuc viget. Huncconvellere scholasticis difficultatibus, audax consilium est’ [=Here I do not contendbut continue to assert that such was the custom of the Church for many centuries andit still exists in the Eastern Church. To avoid such a position on account of thedifficulties of the Scholastics would be an unwise decision]; since, in order tomaintain it, it would be sufficient to hold any possible answer that is given to theobjections lodged against it, thus following at the same time the teaching of PopeInnocent III”.

131


26 Opera Omnia… Antwerp 1694: De sacrificio Missae tractatus asceticus, book 1, chapter 18No. 9: the consideration was caused by scruples in reciting the formula of consecration in theEucharist by the priest together with the bishop.

Penance

The Eastern sacramental discipline confirmed the Latin Catholic disciplineagainst Protestant objections. In fact, in analyzing confession, in particular the aspectof the full disclosure of every single mortal sin committed by the penitent (withoutholding back, out of reticence or shame), the pope considered Luther’s objection,against which he opposed the perfect consistency of the Eastern and WesternChurches. The German theologian indeed had denied the power of the keys on mortaland venial sins (which latter sins constitute sufficient but not necessary matter of thesacraments).The pope confirmed the Catholic discipline existing also in theOrthodox Greek Church. Lambertini discussed both the indicative and thedeprecative formulas of absolution, the latter being the one in use by the Greeks. Theindicative formula, in conformity with the Council of Trent (Session 14, Chapter 30)and the Roman Rituals, he said, was to be preferred because it stressed the judicialvalue of the absolution and offered the certainty of forgiveness to the penitent, whilethe deprecatory formula, which implied the mediation of the minister, since it was inthe form of a prayer, did not express adequately the “dogma defined by the Councilof Trent… that the sacramental absolution of the priest is a judicial action, and thatto pronounce and declare to the penitent that his sins are forgiven is not merely aministerial function;” such a formula would leave the penitent in doubt vis-à-vis thepossibility that the prayer would be accepted27.

Certainty of the remission of sins, sacramental absolution as a judicial act andauthority of the ordained minister went hand in hand as parts of the same equation,whose final result was the remission of the sins of the faithful and attaining the graceof God. The organization of the sacramental structure forced the strict adoption of theindicative form taught by the Council of Trent; however, the witnesses found in theLatin rituals until the XII century opened the way to the dangerous possibility andthe “terrible assumption of having to admit as invalid all the absolutions given formany centuries in both the Latin and Greek Churches”. The deprecatory formulatherefore had been valid and Lambertini limited himself to repeat the necessity thatat present the Eastern Catholic Churches (Armenian, Maronite, Chaldean, Greek-Melkite, Ruthenian) should adopt the indicative formula, perhaps by combining itwith the deprecatory one which could also be recited28. Finally his reasoningconcluded with the condemnation of the practice of individually absolving everysingle sin that had been confessed according to a pious custom suggested by someArmenian priests, “so that, by the multiplication of the absolutions, [the faithful]

132


27 Ed. HEINER, Title III, Chapter 2, Nos. 1-8, quotation on page 334, with reference to Session14, Chapter 6 and Canon 9 on Penance in the Council of Trent.

28 Ibidem, p. 335.

would obtain new grace which is connected with the ex opere operato [=by the workperformed] of the sacrament”29. The integrity of the confession of sins by the penitentand the total judicial single absolution by the priest were the only means to establishthe certainty of forgiveness, thus eliminating pious practices that led to confusion anduncertainty.

Equity and balance were the objective of the penitential satisfaction that thepriest had to impose on the penitent after the confession of his sins: it was medicinefor the spiritual infirmity and a good safeguard of the new life, but also penalretribution for the sins committed. Hence, the Greek custom of recommending assatisfaction the anointing of the sick was rejected for the purpose of bringing thepenitential discipline on a par with the teaching of the Roman Church, “mother andteacher of all the faithful.” Indeed, the Greeks were, on the one hand, too lax byimposing on wealthy penitents guilty of serious sins the anoint of themselves withthe oil of the sick,” and on the other too severe with the priests who confessed sexualsins “by imposing as penance to abstain from the celebration of the Divine Liturgyfor a long time or even all their lives”30. The 1720 Ruthenian Synod of Zamośćrejected the rigid Eastern discipline and returned the practice to the Latin norm whichgave to the confessor the power to “determine, at his discretion, but with prudence,the most convenient satisfaction” on the basis of the position of the penitent and onthe quality of the person31. The same instruction, namely of moderating the old rigorsof the penitential canons that was directed mostly to public sinners, had been givenby Gregory XIII to the patriarch of the Maronites. On the other hand the severity hadbeen suggested by Benedict XIV in the circumstances reflected by the constitutionApostolica Constitutio, as a preparation to the jubilee year, which imposed onconfessors to delay the absolution of the penitent in case of a visible absence of signs

133


29 Ibidem, p. 338. The absolution of every single sin, as practiced by the Armenians, was rejectedbecause “after the penitent had confessed a mortal sin, there may be others of similar gravity toconfess; now, if the penitent received the absolution after confessing the first mortal sin, it wouldbe given to him before a complete confession of all his sins, which would be a sacrilegecondemned by the Church. Indeed, even if the confessor were certain that, after the penitent hadconfessed a mortal sin, he did not have any other mortal sin to confess, giving the absolution afterthe first mortal sin he had heard he would act against the practice of the Church in a very seriousmatter. According to the Church’s practice the absolution is given after the penitent has completedhis confession; by multiplying the absolutions the door would be open to a very serious error,namely that the final absolution would not be sufficient to forgive all sins.” Benedict XIV placedon the same level the multiplication of absolutions as the request to receive the Eucharist underboth species or to receive more than one consecrated host in order to achieve greater holiness, thusconfuting the assertion that a greater amount of the sacrament would grant a greater grace (Ibidem,pp. 338-339).

30 Ed. HEINER, Title III, Chapter 3, No. 5, p. 341.31 Ibidem, p. 342.

32 Constitution 19, §22, MPR Book iii, pp. 155-156: Benedict XIV appealed to Proposition No.60 of Innocent XI of March 2, 1679. The pope stressed that in the Roman ritual (and not in a workby a strict theologian) there was the indication that the confessor, when denying or delaying theabsolution, had to explain to the penitent his situation, the gravity of the sin committed, and theabomination of his condition thus leading him to abandon sin.

33 Ed. HEINER, Title III, Chapter 4, Nos. 11-12. From the obligation of maintaining the secrecyof confession in all cases there derive three undisputed principles: first, that “there is no case inwhich the secrets of confession can be revealed; secondly, that, even following the principle of theGreek law, the witness of the spiritual director [=confessor], either in favor or against his spiritualson, cannot be admitted; and third, that it is too dangerous to accept the witness of the confessorin order to regulate the ordination to orders” (Ibidem, p. 350).

34 According to the doubts submitted to the congregation of Propaganda Fide on September 12,1645 and answered by the decree of Innocent X; resubmitted to the Holy Office and answered bya decree of March 23, 1656 under Alexander VII, reinterpreted by the Holy Office under ClementIX in 1669, according to the publication of the collection of bulls of Propaganda Fide that wasbeing printed at the time of Benedict XIV, see Bullarium Pontificium de Propaganda Fide…,Urban College Press, Rome 1839-41, in 5 volumes.

of sorrow or of obvious detestation of sin, a lack of resolve not to sin in the future,or the lack of restitution of stolen goods when he could do so32.

As concerned the secrecy of confession, whose common doctrine was imposedby natural, divine and ecclesiastical law, Benedict XIV pointed out the unanimousposition of the Eastern and the Catholic Church, only marred by some Eastern errors,such as the public denunciation of priests who had been guilty of fornication and thepractice of accepting by the bishop the witness of the confessor in favor or againsthis spiritual son when he was a candidate for the sacrament of orders33.

Anointing of the sickThe anointing of the sick as well is the object of an analytical comparison of

ritual conformity and sacramental value that united the Catholic Latin Church and theEastern Churches despite the division. Vis-à-vis this harmony the practice of theSyrian-Nestorians and the Armenians stood out as an exception. It is undoubtedlyvery interesting that Benedict XIV in his examination injected also the objectionspresented in the 17th century by the missionary in China who found that the localCatholic female believers refused to be touched by the priests in certain parts of thebody. Benedict XIV confirmed the intangibility and integrity of the rite of theanointing of the sick against the opposition of the shame that this sacrament causedin Chinese women. The missionaries in fact had feared that the shame caused inwomen by this sacrament could spell the end of Christianity in China34; however thequestion had been clearly closed by the condemnation of Innocent XI of March 2,1679 with the statement: “In conferring the sacraments it is not forbidden to follow

134


35 Ed. HEINER, Title III, Chapter 7, p. 361.36 Ed. HEINER, Title IV, De Ordine. Chapter 2, Del ministro scismatico della sacra

ordinazione…, p. 376, went over the history of the Orthodox separation and reconciliationsbetween the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church; the schism of the 9th century with Photiusand of the 11th century with Michael Caerularius, patriarch of Constantinople; in the 13th centurythere were four reconciliations with the Greeks, in the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III,another with Innocent IV (attested by the letter to the bishop of Tusculum, his legate in thekingdom of Cyprus), another under Alexander IV, and the fourth during the Council of Florence,where the union was sanctioned and a strict examination of the Greek rites was conducted; in the16th century, with Clement VIII there took place the union with the Ruthenians: in none of theseunions was there any demand to repeat the ordination of the ministers ordained by the Orthodoxbishops; from this there follows the “uniformity of discipline” as long as in such ordination thelegitimate rite was kept as regards the essence of the sacrament”. This position was confirmed byBenedict XIV in the first instruction to the Coptic doubts, Eo quamvis, §11, where “we granted tothe pastors of Coptic rite, although Orthodox but validly ordained, not only to be able to exercisethe orders they had received, but also to administer the parish sacraments, however, after havingreceived the necessary absolution and the dispensation from the irregularity and the censures andpenalties imposed by the Church against the Orthodox and heretics and limiting the administrationof the parish sacraments only to those that the ecclesiastic superior had recognized as deserving ofthe grace, and provided their conversion was sincere”. See also the same chapter in prior versions,kept in BUB Ms. 268, title I i; Vat. Lat. 11835 No. 2.

a probable opinion on the value of the sacrament, setting aside the safer one, unlessthis is forbidden by law, custom or the danger of incurring serious harm. Hence tofollow the probable opinion is not applicable in conferring baptism, priestly orepiscopal ordinations”35.

Holy ordersSpecial attention is given to the subjects of guaranteeing the preservation of the

entire church organization, regularity in the administration of holy orders and themutual acknowledgment of validity in the two Churches, the Eastern Churches andthe Catholic Church. Ordinations conferred by the bishops of the Orthodox Churchesin the East were considered as having the same value as the ordinations conferred bythe Catholic Church in the West, in the same manner as baptism conferred byheretics; in other words, the act of ordination was illicit but valid. Just as the baptismof heretics imprinted the character on the soul, and the heretical person, after theabjuration and the absolution of incurred penalties, was admitted fully into theCatholic Church, the Orthodox orders, after the abjuration and the dispensation of theHoly See, did not require a new ordination and the ordained minister was allowed toadminister the sacraments appropriate to his rank36. Benedict XIV defined this line ofconduct, in which he put explicitly the legislative interventions promulgated underhis authority, as epikeia [=benevolent interpretation], by interpreting this position notas weakness but as just condescension which explained the obscure portion of thelaw and mitigated cases of extreme severity.

135


According to Benedict XIV, the Church had the authority to add to the matter andthe form of the sacraments some necessary conditions which, if not observed, madethe act null and void. This was the case of the Tridentine form of marriage and of theapproval of the bishop for priests to hear confessions, of the distinction in the sacredorders between the character, the substance and the exercise connected with thesacrament. This latter condition reinforced the bond with the Church’s authority: thecharacter, which was indelible if conferred respecting the essence of the sacrament,was received independent from the Church, but the exercise connected with the orderdepended from the authority of the Church. Hence, Benedict XIV justified the lackof recognition of the ordinations by the Anglican bishops on the part of the CatholicChurch, unlike the ordinations of the Orthodox bishops of the East, because, in thecase of the Anglicans, the essence of the sacrament had not been observed asappeared from the Book of Common Prayer37. The invalid ordination at the hand ofMatthew Parker, from which came the subsequent ordinations, had interrupted theapostolic succession. It was in fact conducted by a minister deprived of the episcopalcharacter, since all the Catholic bishops had been imprisoned by Queen Elizabeth.The ritual, modified by King Edward, demanded the prior recognition of the king ofEngland as head of the official religion and of spiritual matters. This carried with ita lack of the Catholic form and a profession of heresy.

As opposed to the controversy and the rupture of contacts between the CatholicChurch and the Protestant ecclesial communities, the agreement between theOrthodox Church of the East and the Catholic Church in matters of the sacramentspresented a confirmation and a chance for discussing any differences about thesacraments. The differences on the number of sacred orders, or the non-observanceof the Latin discipline were tolerated in the case of the Eastern Catholics, “since itwas not certain that the minor orders were of divine right or that they weresacraments”38. Trent had officially sanctioned the number 7 of the sacraments and thevarious degrees of the sacrament of order.

Priestly celibacy connected with the sacred orders was defined as a precept ofecclesiastical law, since it was not matter of dogma or of prohibition of divine right.It was rather motivated by the necessity of protecting the clergy from theinvolvement in material things which the presence of wife and children tended toincrease, and of favoring the love for study. Despite all this, the popes never forbadethe marriage of the Greek priests, which was based on the Trullan Council; indeed

136


37 The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments & Other Rites andCeremonies of the Church according to the Use of the Church of England was consulted byLambertini in the London edition 1727, quoted in Ed. HEINER, Title IV De Ordine, Chapter 2, pp.378-379; Archbishop Parker, born in 1504 and deceased in 1575, was the theologian founder ofthe Anglican Church of England.

38 Ed. HEINER, Title IV, Chapter 4, No. 4, p. 273.

they had allowed Eastern Catholic priests, deacons and sub-deacons to keep theirwife if married before ordination and to live with her. Along the line of the firstInstruction on the Italian-Greeks of Clement VIII, Benedict XIV requested theabstention from sexual intercourse for a week or for at least three days beforecelebrating the Eucharist, basing himself on biblical reasons. In fact he cited the firstBook of Samuel, chapter 21, where the priest Ahimelech offered the “sacred breads”to David and his soldiers provided they had abstained from sexual intercourse forthree days39. Indeed, “if between the sacred bread and the body of Christ there is thedifference that exists between the shadow and the body or between the image andreality, there is no reasonable person in the world that would not admit a good basisfor the married Greek priest to abstain from sexual intercourse at least three daysbefore celebrating Mass”40.

MatrimonyIn considering matrimony, prescribed for Catholics in the Tridentine form,

Benedict XIV took into account the promulgation of the Council of Trent itself. Inthe Dutch territory, the dioceses of the “Ruthenian Province”, the East Indies or inthe kingdoms of Albania and Serbia, or again for the Armenian Catholics of thepatriarchal vicariate of Constantinople, the differentiating element was whether thedecrees had been promulgated, or simply whether the Roman ritual containing theform of the decree had been received in the individual parishes41.

137


39 Ed. HEINER, Title IV, chapter 6, Nos. 6-7. Benedict XIV, in addition to the Instruction ofClement VIII, based himself on the reconciliations of the Councils of Lyons and Florence, inwhich this point did not represent an obstacle, and on the admission of Gregory XIII in his letterto the patriarch of the Maronites. The provincial Synod of the Ruthenians renewed what had beenestablished by Clement VIII by extending the discipline that imposed abstinence from sexualintercourse with a wife even to the deacon who was called to serve at the altar if he was to receivecommunion. This synod was confirmed by Benedict XIV with his constitution Singularis ofSeptember 1, 1741, NBR Title I, No. 31, pp. 274-278. Even in the constitutions Nos. 43, 57 and129 we have the confirmation of the disposition “both in order to follow the instructions of ourpredecessor Clement VIII as well as out of due reverence to the holy sacrifice of the Mass”, Ed.HEINER, Title IV, Chapter 6, p. 364. Moreover the authority of the Council in Trullo is discussedin the ensuing chapter 7, Nos. 6-9, where the value of “general” council was not given to it, sinceit was not approved except for the canons that were not opposed to the decrees of the Romanpopes.

40 Ibidem, p. 394, where the Pope confirmed the custom existing in the Armenian Church ofabstaining from sexual intercourse for forty days before and after the celebration of Mass. Theappeal from the Latin rite bishop of Aspaham in Persia, who asked the authority to moderate thiscustom, had been rejected by the Congregation of the Holy Office, convened with Clement XI onMay 14, 1705.

41 Ed. HEINER, Title V, De Matrimonio, Chapter 8, Dell’errore, della condizione, del ratto, Nos.9-13, pp. 444-445.

The sacramental validity/efficacy required that the union should have beencelebrated between a Catholic and an unbeliever, between a Catholic and a heretic,or again that the marriage should have established a rapport of mutuality with thenatural unions contracted before the conversion of either one or of both spouses. Thedissolution of marriage contracted and consummated while in the condition of non-belief, as contemplated by the papal constitutions, on the basis of what the ApostlePaul had granted, offered “the privilege of freedom directly to the believing spousein consideration and in respect of the faith embraced, and indirectly also to the non-believing spouse on account of the reciprocity of the contract”42. Concerning thecohabitation between a believing spouse and an unbelieving one, “without offense toGod”, laws were at odds: on the one hand, the Fourth Council of Toledo (concerningJews marrying Christian spouses, Canon 28, question 1) forbade such cohabitation;on the other, the second chapter of “Quanto” and “Gaudemus de divortiis” did notforbade it if it was peaceful. Benedict XIV suggested respecting the local laws andcustoms; he allowed the judgment of the ecclesiastical superior to evaluate theindividual situations; and he concluded citing the opinion of Father Carlo FrancescoBreno, according to whom cohabitation was very difficult and who advised to leaveto the believing spouse the freedom to enter a second marriage43.

Polygamy by the faithful before conversion, with reference to the neophytes ofthe East and West Indies, was regulated by the constitutions of Pius V and GregoryXIII, where the decision had been adopted “by independent initiative and on sureknowledge and in the fullness of apostolic authority”44. Benedict XIV, who did not

138


42 Ed. HEINER, Title V, De matrimonio, Chapter 1, Del sacramento del matrimonio quantoall’indissolubilità dello stesso, p. 416. The analysis on the opinions on marriage and the Paulineprivilege was discussed by Lambertini on March 29, 1727, and in the discussion about theFlorentine case of January 17, 1722, whose data are found in Thesaurus resolutionum SacraeCongregationis Concilii, Romae 1739, Title II, p. 117; Title III, pp. 346 and 350; Title IV, p. 30.

43 The opinion of Carlo Francesco Breno was maintained in the Epitome manualismissionariorum orientalium ad admodum…, Romae 1736 (Anthony de Rubeis printing). Whichwas divided into four parts: I De Romano pontifice…; II De sacramentis in genere et in specie. Devariis orientalium erroribus et in specie moraliter consideratis; III De sacramentis in genere… atin specie moraliter consideratis; IV De dubiis moralibus virtutes concernentibus…. The opinionquoted was found in part III, chapter 7, De sacramento matrimonii, question 1, No. 659.

44 Benedict XIV, through Father Breno, quotes a concession by UrbanVIII to the convertedfaithful to live with one of the wives who accepted to be baptized; he ignores or does not quote thedocument Romani pontificis by Pius V (August 2, 1571), which established the criterion that faithcould dissolve polygamist marriage, whereby the one being baptized remained with the wifewilling to receive baptism; see the remaining part of the constitution in J. METZLER, AmericaPontificia primi saeculi evangelizationis 1493-1592, Vatican City 1991, II, pp. 894-895.Following the reasoning found in Ed. HEINER, Title V, On Marriage, Chapter 1, p. 418, I think Ican say that Benedict XIV did not have direct knowledge of the three constitutions of Paul III, PiusV and Gregory XIII, since the respective reasoning is confused among them.

cite the first disposition on the marriage of infidels, Altitudo divini consilii of PaulIII, extended the validity of these dispositions to the Christians who were in similarconditions all over the world, even in Europe, in the document Apostolici ministeriiof September 16, 174745.

Concerning the indissolubility of marriage, the Greek discipline, that legitimizedseparation on the basis of Mosaic law applied restrictively to the single case ofadultery, was contradicted by the decisions of the Roman popes who did not allowdivorce to those Eastern Catholics subject to the jurisdiction of the Latin bishops46.The definition of the Council of Trent on the indissolubility directly condemned theposition of Luther, but did not condemn the Orthodox Greeks subject to the Republicof Venice: the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage was formulated in such a wayas to oppose the open contestation and include other matrimonial situations in an“equitable” manner47.

The impediment of the disparity of religion had been dealt with by Benedict XIVin the constitution Singulari Nobis, which sanctioned the nullity and unlawfulness ofmarriage contracted by parties with different religion; the dispensation could beobtained for serious reason and without danger to the faith48.

In the case of the Chinese and Japanese, a prudential stand had been adopted,with the decision that the missionaries could grant dispensations, according to thedecree of the Holy Office of January 23, 1669, on the authority of Clement IX, sincein those places the number of Christians was lesser than that the one of non-believers49. The Eastern Church, on the basis of the 72nd Canon of the Council inTrullo established the nullity and unlawfulness of marriage between a heretic and a

139


45 See G. OESTERLÉ. Privilège Paulin, in Dictionnaire de droit canonique, Paris 1965, Columns229-280, particularly 267-268: Benedict XIV granted to the Jewish neophyte the possibility ofusing the Pauline privilege.

46 Ed. HEINER, Title V, Ibidem, Chapter 2, Dell’indissolubilità del vincolo matrimoniale…, pp.420-421.

47 Ibidem, Chapter 3, pp. 423-424. Benedict XIV adopted the common feeling approved by theRoman tribunals and the Sacred Penitentiary which held that there was no sufficient reason togrant the annulment of marriage if it was contracted according to the custom of the country thatincluded the possibility of repudiation; namely, the fact that both or just one of the contractingparties had conditioned their will with an explicit pact containing the freedom to repudiate, andwithout such freedom would not have contracted marriage. In this case, the marriage had to beconsidered null and void, and the converted party could enter another marriage; however, thenullity did not derive from the option offered by the wrong laws allowing the dissolution of thebond of matrimony, but from the fact that a condition opposed to the essence of marriage had beeninserted, namely the fact that repudiation could be given.

48 Constitution of February 9, 1748, MRP Title III, pp. 4-15, which was directed to CardinalEnrico, duke of York.

49 The decree was cited in the collection of the constitutions and briefs for the missions of Chinaand Tonkin, published in Paris in 1676 (p. 38).

baptized person, to which Benedict XIV gave value for its antiquity concerningEastern Catholics, even if the context of the canon concerned marriages betweenSaracens and Christians50.

The teaching of the Council of Trent on the celibacy of the clergy, which wentback to the 11th-12th century, was defined by the Council in the Session 24 deMatrimonio [=On Marriage] against “the Protestants of the time who rejectedecclesiastical celibacy and taught that all could or should take a wife, both those whowere ordained as well as those who had taken religious vows; and whoevernowadays, either in the West or in the East should dare to annul a contractedmarriage, let him be excommunicated”51. However, the Pope added, basing himselfon the instruction of Clement VIII expressed in the document Etsi pastoralis (§ 7,No. 27), that the discipline of the Italian-Greeks had been made to conform with theLatin discipline since the law of the Eastern Greeks should not be confused with thelaw of the Italian-Greeks”.

The gradual restriction of the obligation not to marry within the seventh degreeof consanguinity, sanctioned by Gregory the Great for the English neophytes in thebeginning of their conversion and later re-sanctioned by both the Roman Councils(under Nicholas II and Alexander II), became the common discipline with the SecondLateran Council which established the fourth degree for all Christians. This case isused by Benedict XIV to speak about the delicate question of Roman authorityregarding dispensations, going back to a question which had been dealt with manytimes. A very serious obstacle prevented the pope to give a dispensation if there wereno cases and precedents of such dispensations: even in the case of marriagecontracted within the first degree of the direct line of affinity between stepfather andstepdaughter or stepson and stepmother. There had been cases during the pontificateof Benedict XIII and the pope had been advised by the then canonical expertLambertini not to grant the dispensation, even if, in a particular case, the stepfatherand the violated stepdaughter risked being condemned to death. Despite this fact, thedispensation was denied, although the pope had intended to use “every care so thatthe unfortunate people should be spared the penalty of death, since this role wouldbefit a priest just as much as it would be inappropriate for the pope to grant adispensation never before granted by any of his predecessors”52.

Analysis of the rites of purification and abstention from the sacraments after abirth presented the opportunity to enter into the method of the study of the rituals.

140


50 Ed. HEINER, Title V, De Matrimonio, Chapter 5, Della disparità di culto…, Nos. 3-7, pp. 431-432.

51 Ibidem, Chapter 6 Del Matrimonio contratto dopo l’Ordine…, p. 436. The definition of Trent,according to Benedict XIV, did not include the Eastern Church which had its special discipline inthe matter, as was explained by Propaganda Fide on September 26, 1631.

52 Ed. HEINER, Title V, Chapter 7, Dell’impedimento dell’età…, No. 9, p. 440.

53 Ibidem, Chapetr 11, Della purificazione dopo il parto: the rite is defined according to thedescription given in the Rituale romano by Paul V; Van Espen, in his work Iuris ecclesiastici(Book I, Part 2, Title 2 Chapter 5) pointed out that the rite was still in use “beyond the mountains.Lambertini left the freedon to submit to the rite, however, the woman who does not follow it, doesnot commit sin, unless she does so out of spite” (cited in Ibidem, p. 451).

54 Ibidem, p. 454.

The first comparison is carried out with the rules of purification and legal impurityimposed by the Mosaic law to which even the Blessed Virgin Mary freely subjectedherself, although she belonged already to the new economy of grace. The rite, whichincluded a pious and practically universal custom, was not obligatory and consistedof a procession of the new mothers to the church, with a candle in their hands; theywere received by the priest at the doors of the church and received his blessing; afterwhich, repeating the gesture of the Gospel woman affected by a flow of blood whowas healed by Jesus, they held the end of the priestly stole, entered the church, kneltbefore the altar and thanked God for the gift of life they had received53. This ritecould not be confused with the purification of the women of India after childbirth,because this was part of the so-called Malabarese rites and was based on the periodof delay imposed by the Indian neophytes before allowing the women to go to churchand to confession after childbirth or during the menstruation periods. As prescribedby the decree of the cardinal of Tournon of 1703, accepted and approved also byBenedict XIV with his Omnium sollicitudinum, the custom was “based on somepopular superstition” and could not be admitted on the basis of a simple similaritywith the customs of the Leviticus, chapter 15.

In addition, there existed for the pope the question of the relationship between theChristian rites and the Jewish rites and, without an explicit reference, between theChristian sacraments and the Jewish liturgies. Was it permitted for Christians tomaintain the Jewish rites even in the new economy of the Gospel? Maintaining sucha tradition was impossible “if it concerned the rites of the old law that foretold thecoming of the Messiah; similarly it was not permitted as regards the basic andessential ritual ceremonies, such as sacrifices and the priesthood. The same is notforbidden, however, when it involves unimportant things which are not followedexactly as was done in the old law and which are done nowadays out of concern fora moral reason rather than a ritual one54.

As concerns the relationship of the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic rites,Benedict XIV confirmed the intention of the Holy See not to “forbid the Greeks allthose things they practice which can be tolerated without offense to our religion”, somuch so that it was wisely resolved not to change anything that refers to the impurityof the body and the impurity of the soul, since the words of the Greek prayers canreceive a benign interpretation, such as prayer to God that he fully free the soul fromsin, and the body from such impurity, not so much legally but rather naturally, which

141


affects the impurity of the soul, since the purity of the body influences the reverencedue to the churches and the sacred things”55.

Conclusions

The councils of the Middle Age borrowed from Scholastic theology a languageand a logical system for the purpose of analyzing the sacraments. The encounter withthe religious realities outside Christianity, e.g., the Jews who were baptized againsttheir will in Spain, or the coming face to face with new people conquered by theEuropeans in the Western and Eastern Indies prompted the modern papacy to dealwith the sacraments within the area of their interventions. The formulas adopted bythe Council of Trent to counteract the Protestant objections permitted also theincorporation into the juridical system of the Church the neophytes of the NewWorld, the Eastern Catholics, and the marriage contracted between Catholics andother people. The categories worked out during the centuries of ideological debates,before and after the Council of Trent, to oppose to the “heretical” objections of themedieval and modern years were used by Benedict XIV in mid-18th century in a waythat emphasized the juridical aspect of the sacraments. The pope from Bolognaindeed dealt with the subject of the sacraments not just quantitatively more than hispredecessors, but also in a qualitatively different manner. He created a system of thesacraments starting from the confusing casuistry of the decision by the RomanCongregations and Tribunals along the lines of the interpretation and implementationof the Council of Trent.

The concrete situation of the Catholic Church in the early 18th century,characterized by a pastoral care that was quasi-stagnant due to an excessive numberof privileges, customs, conflicts of rights and duties, had become a confusedcomplex, beset by endless disputes. The legislative decisions of Benedict XIV weremeant to unravel such confusion, little by little, by way of a rational objective thatwas almost utopian. For this reason the recourse to papal authority and to the RomanCongregations was not simply a controversial method, but pointed essentially to analternative way in the conflicts between powers within the ecclesial realities of histime. In this manner, he defended the institutions of the Church of his day,confirming it as an edifice that was both sacramental, territorial, and according to theCouncil of Trent, where the necessity to introduce any reform derived more from theinfidelity of the clergy or his cultural insufficiency rather than from a lack of amodel56. In this manner the pope resolved the contrast between historical truth andtheological truth by “looking” at the sources of the Church.

142


55 Ibidem, p. 455.56 This was as sign of a greater difficult to conciliate theology and history vis-à-vis the clash

Papal and conciliar decisions were, as it were, taken and interpreted by the curialoffices in a process of consolidation of two and a half centuries that did not eliminatecontradictions and overlapping between decisions and regulations. The jurist pope,in the light of this curial jurisprudence, carried out a synthesis and harmonization ofprevious regulations, in order to offer the bishops clear indications, based on a“tradition,” on the rationality of the deciding organs and on the rationality of thedecisions themselves, in order, as it were, to favor the sharing of choices57. Suchreading of the Council of Trent in light of the curial interpretation indicates aninterpretative journey that Pope Lambertini attempted to bring to its extremeconsequences, in order to bring about a legal reason and a qualitative harmony58. Heattributed a guiding role to the “minimalist” interpretation of the Council of Trentused by the Roman Curia within the confines indicated by the decisions of theRoman Curia, sifted through the rich casuistry of the Congregation of the Council. Inthis manner, the sacramental Church was for Benedict XIV the structure capable ofmaintaining a juridical system. In the Archbishop of Bologna and in the RomanPontiff, the direct experience was constantly filtered by his years spent in the curiaas consultor, member and secretary of various congregations.

143


between faith and natural sciences, mentioned by E. TROELTSCH, Fede e storia, by R. Garaventa,Brescia 1977, p. 97.

57 An overall analysis of the cataloguing of the Council of Trent would be highly fundamentalaccording to the manuscript materials collected in BUB, Manuscripts 508-509-510, Ad S.Concilium Tridentinum, nempe a Sessione IV ad XXV Adnotationes, where the decisions of thepopes that followed are organized on the basis of Sessions V-XXV of the Council; Manuscripts270, Chapters I-XVIII Varia. Manuscript 270, Chapter II, No. 12, Concilia EcclesiarumOrientalium contains the files of 96 synods and councils from 314 to 1736, “Concilia, Canones etEpistolae Synodicae Ecclesiarum Orientalium, ex Mss Codicibus Syriacis et Arabicis. Nuncprimum in lucem prodeunt, Auspiciis SS. D.N. Benedicti XIV Pont. Max”.

58 BUB Manuscript 270, Chapter III 16 Ad Concilium Tridentinum “Extravagantes Jurisnovissimi ad concilium Tridentinum pertinentes”: therein, 128 files are collected, organizedaccording to the conciliar sessions and according to topics, followed by papal regulations thatclarified, interpreted or modified the text of the Council of Trent. BUB manuscripts 531-542 collectthe files of the resolutions of the congregation of the council, with the notes of Popes Pius IV, PiusV, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, organized according to the individual sessions and chapters of the samecouncil; Manuscript 535, chapters I-IV collects the decisions of the cases from 1652 to 1669;Manuscript 536, chapters I-IV the cases from 1681 to 1689; Manuscript 537, chapters I-III until1717; Manuscript 539 collects the declarations of the congregation of the council from 1591 to1604; Manuscript 542 contains Opus in sacrum Concilium Tridentinum a sessione I usque adfinem by Prospero Fagnani. Editor’s note: This essay is an edited version of an original Italiancontribution written by Maria Teresa Fattori of the University of Modena, Italy, for Tutto è grazia:Omaggio a Giuseppe Ruggieri. Edited by Alberto Melloni. Jaca Book: Milan 2011. The Rev. Prof.George D. Gallaro of the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Pittsburghkindly arranged this translation, for which the Editors of Nicolaus are very grateful.

The outcome of this process of synthesis was less advanced than the will to carryout such synthesis. Moreover, the attempt to establish a monolithic andincontrovertible dictate of the rule was not always capable of breaking away from the“pastoral paralysis.” The limitations represented by the cultural, normative andliturgical baggage that had accumulated after the Council of Trent, prevented himfrom accepting some adaptations of the sacraments, such as the Malabarese rites, butalso to bring to its ultimate consequences faith in the sacraments, for instance in theordination of the American and Asian neophytes, which thus was kept in check in theChurch of the sacraments.

144


Benedict XIV and His Sacramental Polity on the Eastern Churches (1740-1758), «Nicolaus - Rivista di...

Documents

Transcript of Benedict XIV and His Sacramental Polity on the Eastern Churches (1740-1758), «Nicolaus - Rivista di...