On the First Precept of the Decalogue

“26. The prayer of one foreknown [as damned] avails no one.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“50. In vain do we cry to God: My Father, if it is not the spirit of charity that cries. — 59. The prayer of the impious is a new sin; and what God grants them is a new judgment upon them.” Propositions of Paschasius Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“7. He who, in praying, asks for something singular and determinate asks for evil and asks evilly, because he asks for a negation of good and a negation of God, and prays that God be denied to him.” Proposition of Eckhart condemned by John XXII in 1329.

“14. It is not fitting for one who is resigned to the divine will to ask anything from God, because asking is an imperfection, since it is an act of one’s own will and choice, and is to will that the divine will be conformed to ours, and not that ours be conformed to the divine; and that saying of the Gospel, Ask and you shall receive, was not spoken by Christ for interior souls, which do not wish to have a will; indeed, souls of this kind arrive at such a point that they cannot ask anything from God. — 15. Just as they ought not to ask anything from God, so neither ought they to give Him thanks for anything, because each is an act of one’s own will. — 22. To assert that in prayer it is necessary to help oneself through discourse and through thoughts when God does not speak to the soul is ignorance. God never speaks; His speech is operation, and He always operates in the soul when it does not impede Him by its discourses, thoughts, and operations. — 23. In prayer it is necessary to remain in obscure and universal faith, with quiet and forgetfulness of every particular and distinct thought concerning the attributes of God and the Trinity, and thus to remain in the presence of God to adore, love, and serve Him, but without producing acts, because God is not pleased with these. — 24. Whatever thoughts occur in prayer, even impure ones, even against God, the Saints, the faith, and the sacraments, if they are not voluntarily nourished nor voluntarily expelled, but are tolerated with indifference and resignation, do not impede the prayer of faith; indeed, they render it more perfect, because the soul then remains more resigned to the divine will. — 25. Even if sleep supervenes and one sleeps, nevertheless actual prayer and contemplation take place, because prayer and resignation are the same, and while resignation endures, prayer also endures. — 26. Those three ways, the purgative, illuminative, and unitive, are the greatest absurdity that has been spoken in mystical theology, since there is only one way, namely, the interior way. — 27. He who desires and embraces sensible devotion neither desires nor seeks God, but himself; and he who walks by the interior way acts evilly when he desires it and endeavors to have it, both in sacred places and on solemn days. — 30. Everything sensible which is expressed in the spiritual life is abominable, filthy, and unclean. — 32. Neither before nor after Communion is any preparation or thanksgiving required—for these interior souls—other than continuance in solid passive resignation, because in a more perfect manner it supplies for all the acts of the virtues which can and do take place in the ordinary way. And if, on this occasion of Communion, movements of humiliation, petition, or thanksgiving arise, they are to be repressed whenever it is not discerned that they are from a special impulse of God; otherwise they are impulses of nature not yet dead. — 33. A soul which proceeds by this interior way acts evilly if on solemn days it wishes by some particular effort to stir up in itself some devout feeling, since for interior souls all days are equal, all are festive. And the same is said concerning sacred places, because for souls of this kind all places are equal. — 34. To give thanks to God with words and tongue is not for interior souls, which ought to remain in silence, placing no impediment to God’s operating in them; and the more they resign themselves to God, the more they experience that they cannot recite the Lord’s Prayer, or Our Father. — 35. It is not fitting for souls of this interior way to perform operations, even virtuous ones, from their own choice and activity; otherwise they would not be dead. Nor ought they to elicit acts of love toward the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, or the Humanity of Christ, because, since these objects are sensible, such also is the love toward them. — 36. No creature, neither the Blessed Virgin nor the Saints, ought to sit in our heart, because God alone wills to occupy and possess it. — 55. By this interior way, although with much suffering, one arrives at purging and extinguishing all the passions, so that nothing further is felt, nothing, nothing; nor is any disquiet felt, as in a dead body, nor does the soul allow itself to be moved any further. — 56. The two laws and the two cupidities—one of the soul and the other of self-love—endure as long as self-love endures; hence, when this has been purged and killed, as takes place by the interior way, those two laws and two cupidities are no longer present, nor is any fall thereafter incurred, nor is anything further felt, not even venial sin. — 57. Through acquired contemplation one arrives at the state of no longer committing sins, either mortal or venial. — 58. One arrives at a state of this kind by no longer reflecting upon one’s own operations, because defects arise from reflection. — 61. When the soul has arrived at mystical death, it can no longer will anything other than what God wills, because it no longer has a will, and God has taken it away from it. — 62. By the interior way one arrives at a continuous and immovable state in imperturbable peace. — 63. By the interior way one arrives even at the death of the senses; indeed, the sign that someone remains in the state of nothingness, that is, of mystical death, is that the external senses no longer represent sensible things, so that they are as if they did not exist, because they do not succeed in causing the intellect to apply itself to them. — 64. A theologian has less disposition for the contemplative state than an uneducated man: first, because he does not have so pure a faith; second, because he is not so humble; third, because he does not so greatly care for his own salvation; fourth, because he has his head filled with phantasms, species, opinions, and speculations, and cannot enter into that true light.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“9. I recently considered whether I should wish to receive or desire anything from God; I wish to free myself very well from this, because if I were one receiving from God, I would be under Him or beneath Him, as a servant or a slave, and He would be as a Lord in giving; but it will not be thus in eternal life.” Error of Eckhart condemned by John XXII in 1329. Cf. nn. 452, 455.

“18. He who in prayer uses images, figures, species, and his own concepts does not adore God in spirit and truth.” Proposition of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“Is a certain formula to be approved for obtaining that all men acknowledge the supreme dominion of Christ and Mary Immaculate over all creatures? — Resp. The prayer in question is not to be approved, nor propagated among the faithful, nor enriched with indulgences.” Holy Office, 12 June 1895.

“26. Praise which is offered to Mary, as Mary, is vain.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII, 7 Dec. 1698.

“The Saints reigning together with Christ are to be venerated and invoked, and they offer prayers to God for us, and their relics are to be venerated. I most firmly assert that images of Christ and of the Mother of God ever Virgin, as well as of the other Saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be imparted to them.” Tridentine Profession of Faith.

“I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the souls detained there are aided by the suffrages of the faithful.” Tridentine Profession of Faith. [The source prints the section number “437”; corrected here to “457” from the numerical sequence and the subject indicated in the book’s contents.]

“The suffrages of the faithful living, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and alms, and other offices of piety which, according to the institutions of the Church, are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful, profit them—the souls of Purgatory.” Greek Profession of Faith prescribed by Gregory XIII. The same is contained in the same words in the Oriental Profession of Faith prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

“1. Whether it is expedient to approve, or at least to permit, a special worship of the adorable Countenance of the Divine Redeemer, distinct from that customarily rendered until now to the image of the Holy Face, which is being most greatly propagated through the annals of the relevant archconfraternity by the priests called Priests of the Holy Face (Sainte Face), established at Tours. — 2. Whether, in order to propagate or establish the worship concerning which there is question in the other query, it is expedient to dedicate a church or public oratory, to establish confraternities, and even to found some religious congregation or institute under the title of the Holy Face. — Resp. To the 1st: It is not expedient. — To the 2nd: In the negative; and according to the intention.

“The intention is: in adopting the title of the Holy Face, both in the Brief dated 16 Dec. 1884 granting special indulgences to the confraternity erected at Tours under such a title, and in the Brief dated 30 March 1885 elevating the confraternity to the rank of an archconfraternity, the Holy See did not in the least intend to favor, much less either directly or indirectly to give approval to, a special and distinct worship to be rendered to the adorable countenance of the Redeemer in that manner which is especially proposed and propagated by those called Priests of the Holy Face.

“The Holy See intended to favor solely the veneration already shown from ancient times toward the image of the Countenance of the Divine Redeemer, or toward copies of that image, so that, from the veneration and contemplation of the aforesaid image, the memory of the Passion of Christ may increase more from day to day in the minds of the faithful, and in their hearts sorrow for sins and an ardent desire of making reparation for injuries inflicted upon the Divine Majesty may be augmented.” Holy Office, 4 May 1892.

“The Supreme Sacred Roman Universal Inquisition wholly prohibits and condemns the title: The Penitent Heart of Jesus — The Heart of Jesus doing penance for us — Jesus doing penance — Jesus doing penance for us.” Holy Office, 15 July 1893.

“1. When certain matters concerning devotion toward the Most Holy Soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ had been referred by the Sacred Congregation of Rites to the Holy Office, on Wednesday, 10 March 1875, it was decreed: Care is to be taken lest, under the pretext of devotion toward the Most Holy Soul of Christ, novelties deserving reprobation creep into the public worship of the Church in images, formulas of prayer, and other sacred things, or anything new be introduced without consultation of the Holy See, especially if they are derived from devotions or visions neither examined nor approved. Moreover, in the writings sent to the Sacred Congregation of Rites certain things are found which are by no means to be approved, without the amendment of which it is not to be permitted that those writings be published among the people.

“2. In the year 1883, petitions having been presented for the foundation of an Institute for the adoration of the Most Holy Soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on Wednesday, 10 May of the same year, the same Most Eminent Fathers issued the decree: The Sacred Congregation responds to the petitions: In the negative. And this is to be written to the Bishop, who is to withdraw the indulgences attached to the prayers and to each word of them, and is to place no faith in the revelations concerning which there is question; and the decree issued in the year 1875 is to be communicated to the Bishop.

“3. Finally, in the same year and on the same Wednesday, when a certain formula of prayer to the Soul of Jesus Christ was called up for examination, the Most Eminent Fathers ordered it to be amended and ordered the decree reported above to be communicated to the Bishop who had approved it.” Holy Office, May 1901.

“1. Whether and how it is expedient to approve the title of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which the new Institute of the Sisters A. of M., of the diocese of P., assumes. “2. Whether, if the aforesaid title is admitted, it is also expedient to admit among the other feasts of the aforesaid Institute that of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary. — Resp. To each: In the negative.” Holy Office, 13 Dec. 1893.

“The worship of St. Joseph under the title Friend of the Sacred Heart (ami du S. Cœur) was made the object of a special examination; and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals, General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, all the circumstances, especially those occurring in the case, having been maturely weighed, decreed, with the approval of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, that no pronouncement was to be made concerning the matter proposed. — Furthermore, the aforesaid Most Eminent Fathers ordered that the Sacred Congregation of Rites be admonished not thereafter to issue decrees, rescripts, etc., in which in any manner the new title concerning which there is question above is approved, or even in which it is simply mentioned.” Holy Office.

“The worship of the Heart of St. Joseph had already been reproved by Gregory XVI, and for this reason medals which displayed it together with the Most Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary were prohibited.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 19 Feb. 1879; Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 June 1873. [The source prints “Gregory XIV”; corrected here to “Gregory XVI” as required by the historical chronology of the cited devotion.]

“Whether the temporal nativity of any Saint or Blessed, except that of the Virgin Mother of God and also that of St. John the Baptist, can be celebrated by a liturgical rite or by another manner of sacred solemnity. — Resp. In the negative, even if the celebration should take place on the day of death or on any other day assigned to the commemoration of the same Saint or Blessed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 Dec. 1893, General Decree.

With regard to the worship to be rendered to the Holy Thorn, “the Decrees are to be observed, especially the Decree in Tridentina, 12 March 1836, and the others concerning the worship to be exhibited and prescribed for Relics of the life-giving Cross and of the other instruments of the Lord’s Passion.” Holy Office, 17 Sept. 1897. — The Decree in Tridentina, to the 1st, declares that a Relic of the Most Holy Cross is not to be exposed above the Tabernacle containing the Eucharist. The other, in Varsavien., to the 12th, declares that one knee is to be bent before a Relic of the Most Holy Cross exposed in the principal place upon the altar. These things are also confirmed by other Decrees.

“Whether the practice of separating Relics of the Most Holy Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ from relics of the Saints is correct and to be retained. — Resp. In the affirmative, and to the Most Eminent Prefect according to the intention. And the intention was that it be written both to the Most Eminent Vicar of the City and to the Most Reverend Sacristan of the chapel of the Apostolic Palace, to whom the custody of sacred relics pertains, that the decrees previously issued for the separation of Relics of the Most Holy Cross from relics of the Saints be restored to force.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 22 Feb. 1847.

“Whether in a solemn procession of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, both on the day of Corpus Christi and in Holy Week, it is lawful to carry instruments of the Most Holy Passion of Our Savior Jesus Christ, namely, a fragment of the Most Holy Cross or of the Thorn. — Resp. In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1684, n. 1731.

“Whether outside the feast of Corpus Christi and its octave it is lawful, in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the Saints, to carry the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in evening processions, and also images or relics of the Blessed Virgin herself and of the Saints. — Resp. In the affirmative, with the consent of the Ordinary, as regards the first part; in the negative as regards the second.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 Jan. 1896, nn. 3878, 3997.

“Can ancient reliquaries with Relics, which lack an authentic document and formerly belonged to suppressed monasteries, be exposed upon the altar, as has been done from time immemorial? — Resp. In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 June 1892, Lauden., to the 5th.

“There are many relics enclosed in precious silver reliquaries in nearly all the churches of the diocese, even the poorest, for which authentic documents are not held, nor is there knowledge that such documents formerly existed, nor is the time known from which those relics have been possessed. Their number is considerable; and although the reliquaries savor of antiquity, nevertheless there exists in the archives of the parishes or in their histories no certain document proving their authenticity. Yet they are venerated by the peoples with great piety, so that this worship cannot be prohibited without scandal. Therefore, since they are very ancient, so that antiquity itself can constitute an argument sufficient to produce moral certainty, and since among all they have always been and are in the greatest veneration, the Bishop petitioner thinks that worship of this kind can be permitted; nevertheless, to remove every anxiety, he implores the judgment of Your Holiness concerning this. — Resp. Ancient relics are to be preserved in that veneration in which they have hitherto been held, unless in a particular case there are certain arguments that they are false or spurious.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 20 Jan. 1896.

“1. Whether the anterior part of the arm, which is called the forearm, separated from the other, upper part of the same arm, can be held as a notable relic. — 2. Whether the same is to be said of that upper part of the arm, namely, insofar as it too can be held as a notable relic. — 3. Whether the heart, tongue, and hands, if they are miraculously preserved intact, ought to be held as notable relics. — Resp. In the affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 June 1899.

“I profess that which was defined against the Iconoclasts: that images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, as well as of the other Saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be imparted to them.” Oriental Profession of Faith prescribed by Urban VIII and by Benedict XIV.

“29. Likewise, whether he believes and asserts that it is lawful for the relics and images of the Saints to be venerated by the faithful of Christ.” Articles from the Bull Inter cunctas of Martin V concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned.

“69. The prescription which, generally and without distinction, notes images of the incomprehensible Trinity among images to be removed from the Church, as furnishing to the uneducated an occasion of error: on account of its generality, rash and contrary to the pious practice observed in the Church, as though there existed no images of the Most Holy Trinity commonly approved and safely to be permitted. From the Brief Sollicitudini nostrae of Benedict XIV, of the year 1745. — 70. Likewise, the doctrine and prescription generally reproving every special worship which the faithful are accustomed to render to some image in particular, and their having recourse to it rather than to another: rash, pernicious, injurious both to the pious practice observed in the Church and to that order of providence by which God willed that these things not take place in all memorials of the Saints, He who distributes to each his own as He wills. From St. Augustine, Letter 78, to the clergy, elders, and entire people of the Church of Hippo. — 71. Likewise, that which forbids images, especially those of the Blessed Virgin, to be distinguished by any titles other than denominations analogous to mysteries of which express mention is made in Sacred Scripture, as though other pious denominations, which the Church approves and commends even in her public prayers, could not be ascribed to images: rash, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the veneration due especially to the Blessed Virgin. — 72. Likewise, that which wishes to extirpate as an abuse the custom by which certain images are kept veiled: rash, contrary to the practice observed in the Church and introduced for fostering the piety of the faithful.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“25. It is unlawful for a Christian to place an image of God the Father seated in a church.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

From the Brief of Urban VIII, 15 March 1642: “Sacred images are not to be exposed under new forms of dress, but only in that form in which from ancient times they have customarily been exhibited in the Roman Church.” Decree n. 810.

“1. Whether images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus representing the Heart alone, without the rest of the body, may safely be distributed. — 2. Whether they are approved at Rome. — 3. Whether they must be withdrawn from the homes of the faithful where they are objects of veneration. — Resp. To the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd: The image of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ concerning which there is question may be permitted for private devotion, provided that it is not exposed upon altars to be honored with public veneration.” Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1891.

“New emblems of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist are not to be approved by the Apostolic See. For fostering the piety of the faithful, the images of the Most Sacred Heart already used and approved in the Church are sufficient, because worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist is neither more perfect than worship toward the Eucharist itself nor different from worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Furthermore, the same Most Eminent Fathers ordered that the intention made known by this Sacred Congregation at the command of Pope Pius IX of holy memory, on Wednesday, 13 Jan. 1875, be communicated, namely, that other writers also, who sharpen their talents upon these and other arguments of this kind which savor of novelty, and who under the appearance of piety endeavor to promote unaccustomed forms of worship and titles even through periodicals, are to be admonished to desist from their purpose and to weigh the danger there is of drawing the faithful into error even concerning dogmas of faith, and of furnishing to those who hate religion an occasion for detracting from the purity of Catholic doctrine and of true piety.” Holy Office, 3 June 1891.

Nevertheless, by the Brief Admotae nobis of Leo XIII, 16 Feb. 1903, the title and worship of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus is approved. “Petitions have been presented to Us … that through Us a pious Archconfraternity under the title of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus be instituted by Apostolic authority. But We, to whom nothing is more ancient or more pleasant than that a confraternity of the faithful, which, by a worship not wholly dissimilar to that which is professed toward the Sacred Heart, recalls through peculiar exercises of veneration, love, and a grateful and reverent disposition that act of supreme love by which Our Redeemer, pouring forth all the riches of His Heart, instituted the adorable Sacrament of the Eucharist so that He might abide with us until the end of the ages, should obtain a fitting seat in this fostering City, the center of the Catholic world, have judged that assent should be given to these pious desires. These things being so, etc.”

“The Bishop of the diocese of L. asks whether a certain devotion called the Mighty Hand may be considered lawful. It consists in images and medals which represent an open hand having a wound within it and, upon the tips of its fingers, the images of the Child Jesus, of Mary Most Holy, of St. Joachim, and of St. Anne. — Resp. The aforesaid image was previously condemned by the Council of Trent, and let the Bishop take care that the images, medals, and every writing or formula of prayer pertaining to the said devotion be destroyed.” Holy Office, 13 March 1891.

“The Archbishop of N. humbly sets forth that a new article of devotion has been placed on sale there under the name New Cross of the Immaculate Conception. It is a medal in the form of a cross, bearing the image not of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but of the Immaculate on one side, and of the Sacred Hearts with the monogram of the Blessed Virgin on the other. He therefore asks the oracle of Your Holiness whether such a devotion may or may not be approved. — Resp. 14. The aforesaid devotion, as it stands, is not to be approved.” Holy Office, 13 March 1901.

“More than once there has been consideration of a norm to be prescribed for venerating the Blessed Virgin, Mary the Mother of God, under the title Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of images of the Blessed Virgin herself which represent her standing with hands extended and the Child Jesus likewise standing before her knees. And it was decreed that the title indeed could be admitted, but that the images were not to be approved and were to be removed from public veneration, and that they were to be tolerated only in the church of the Sodality of Issoudun; but that, insofar as it could be done, images of the Blessed Virgin Mary carrying the Child Jesus in her arms were to be introduced. Hence the Sacred Order, being greatly solicitous for the law of supplication, which corresponds to the law of belief, after the matter had been maturely weighed, confirming the former decrees and, insofar as need be, renewing them, again disapproves the images concerning which there is question above and forbids them to be proposed to the veneration and piety of the faithful; and where they have been tolerated, it commands that they be cautiously and prudently removed and approved images substituted in their place. — It will not be beside the point here to recall to mind the general admonition appended to the decree of Wednesday, 13 Jan. 1875. (Cf. the preceding paragraph.)” Holy Office, 3 April 1895.

“At Trivento, in the Church of the Holy Cross, there stands, exposed to the public veneration of the faithful, an image of the Sorrowful Virgin Mother of God, clothed in black garments and in the customary habit, but bearing a Crucifix in the left hand. — 1. Can worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of the Cross be tolerated? — 2. What is to be said of the aforesaid image? — Resp. To the 1st: In the liturgical sense, it is not expedient. — To the 2nd: Let the decree of the Council of Trent concerning Sacred Images be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 Feb. 1894, n. 3818.

“It is a firm rule of ecclesiastical liturgy, continually inculcated by this Most Sacred Congregation of Rites, that in one and the same church, and all the more upon one and the same altar, two or more painted panels or statues representing one and the same heavenly citizen—or, if there is question of the Most Holy Virgin, representing the Mother of God invoked under one and the same title—cannot be exposed to public veneration.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 May 1890, Circular Letter.

Constitution of Pope Urban VIII, 5 July 1634. “The citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, in whose glorious birthdays holy Mother Church rejoices, just as they are venerated on earth by the pious faithful of Christ of both sexes by the ministry of this Holy Apostolic See, so it becomes the Roman Pontiff, placed by divine providence over the government of the Church Militant, in accordance with his particular zeal for the honor of the house of God, to watch lest anything be introduced, without consultation of the aforesaid Holy See, concerning the memory or worship of persons deceased with a reputation or opinion of sanctity or martyrdom.

“§ 1. Indeed, on a former occasion We, solicitously observing the abuses which had crept in and did not cease to creep in with regard to the veneration of certain persons deceased with a reputation or opinion of sanctity or martyrdom—who, although they had been distinguished by this See with the honor neither of canonization nor of beatification, nevertheless had their images displayed in oratories and churches, and in other public and even private places, with little crowns or rays or splendors; whose miracles and revelations and other benefits received from God through their intercessions were recounted in books of their deeds; and at whose sepulchers tablets, images, and other things testifying to benefits received, and lamps and other lights, were placed—and consequently wishing, in accordance with the duty of Our pastoral office, to oppose abuses of this kind, after the matter had also been communicated to, and maturely considered and discussed with, Our venerable brethren, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church specially deputed by this See as General Inquisitors against heretical depravity throughout the whole Christian commonwealth, by the counsel of the same Cardinals on the thirteenth day of March 1625 We declared, established, and decreed that images and the other aforesaid things of any men deceased with a reputation for sanctity or martyrdom, however great that reputation might be, and anything else displaying and indicating veneration and worship, were not to be placed in oratories or public or private places, or in churches, whether secular or regular, of any Religion, Order, Institute, Congregation, or Society, before they should be canonized by the Apostolic See or declared Blessed; and that, if any had been placed, they were to be removed, as We commanded them immediately to be removed. And We likewise prohibited books of those same persons who had departed this life celebrated for a reputation or opinion of sanctity or martyrdom, containing deeds, miracles, or revelations, or any benefits whatsoever as received from God through their intercessions, from thereafter being printed without the examination or approval of the Ordinary, who in examining them was to employ theologians and other pious and learned men in counsel and, lest thereafter fraud or error or anything new and inordinate be committed in so grave a matter, was to transmit the documented case to the Apostolic See and await its response. But We willed and commanded that the aforesaid revelations, miracles, and other benefits, which had up to that time been printed without examination and approval of this kind in books containing the lives and deeds of these persons, were in no way to be considered approved. We also forbade and prohibited tablets and images of wax or silver, or of any other material whatsoever, whether painted, fashioned, or sculpted, from being hung or affixed at the sepulchers of these persons, and lamps or any other lights whatsoever from being lit, without an examination wholly to be made by the Ordinary, as above, and reported to and approved by the Apostolic See; declaring that by the aforesaid things We neither wished nor intended in any way to prejudice those who are celebrated either by the common consent of the Church, or by the course of immemorial time, or by the writings of the Fathers and of holy men, or by the knowledge and toleration of the aforesaid Apostolic See or of the Ordinary over the longest course of time.

“And when afterward, on the second day of October of the same year 1625, We learned that it was being called into doubt by certain persons whether it was lawful to receive tablets and images which might thereafter happen to be offered and to preserve those previously offered, We—who wished only, by opposing abuses which seemed to be creeping in, to prepare a more certain way toward the glory on earth of those whose holiness it might please the divine clemency to illustrate by wondrous works—after the matter had first been communicated to the same Cardinals, by their like counsel declared that, just as We had never prohibited, nor was it Our intention to prohibit, the offering and reception of tablets and images of this kind, so, that thereafter no place for doubt might be left, We established and decreed that whenever anyone should bring tablets and images or something else similar to any church or oratory or other public place, secular or regular, and should say that by the intercession of persons not enrolled among the Saints or Blessed, although deceased with a reputation for martyrdom or sanctity, he had obtained the things desired, it would be lawful for the ecclesiastical persons of the aforesaid churches or places, entrusted with their care, to receive the tablets and images, whether painted or fashioned from any material, and any other things whatsoever giving proof of a grace conferred, together with attestations from the person bringing them and from others who were aware of it; and, with the approval of the Ordinaries, to whom they would be bound immediately to report everything, to keep them in some secret place apart from the church, and there to place and preserve those already removed, so that, if at any time the Lord should will to adorn the merits of such men on earth with the honor of beatification or canonization, there might exist proofs, of whatever kind, of such sanctity, then to be examined by the judgment of the Apostolic See.

“Finally, that decrees of this kind might be observed without doubt and obtain complete execution, the matter having likewise been communicated to the same Cardinals, and by their counsel, We added to the foregoing, established, decreed, and declared that from that time forward no one among the Ordinaries or those specially delegated for this by the Apostolic See should in any manner receive afresh information concerning the miracles, revelations, or other things of this kind savoring of sanctity of any person of either sex deceased with a reputation or opinion of sanctity or martyrdom, or construct a process, or further prosecute information hitherto received or a process constructed, unless the postulator should first demonstrate through lawful proofs judicially received concerning the person whose miracles, revelations, or other deeds displaying sanctity were at issue that the form prescribed in Our aforesaid decree had been wholly observed; and unless thereafter successively the same Ordinary, or the person specially delegated for this by the Apostolic See, after a diligent inquiry had first been made concerning the same person, should duly pronounce that the above-cited decree had in no way been contravened.

“And that this might be inviolably observed, We further established and decreed that processes of this kind transmitted to the City from anywhere should not in any manner be opened by the Secretary of the Congregation of Sacred Rites or by the Promoter of the Faith, unless first, in the Congregation of Sacred Rites itself, another authentic process having been presented separately, it should be fully established from it that the Ordinary, or the person specially delegated by the Apostolic See, had duly and correctly, as stated above, taken cognizance and pronounced that the aforesaid decree had in no way been contravened, and thereafter the faculty of judicially opening those processes had been granted by Us. Furthermore, We declared that the longest time, or its immemorial course, concerning which there is question in the aforesaid decree, is to be understood as a period exceeding the limit of one hundred years. And if any difficulty should arise concerning these and all the matters written below which are disposed and ordained in these decrees, We took away altogether from the local Ordinaries and from any Apostolic delegates every faculty of interpreting, and commanded them to consult the Apostolic See thereupon and to await a response from it; and otherwise, as is more fully contained in the decrees issued concerning these matters.

“§ 2. Therefore, wishing, insofar as with the Lord We can, to provide for the inviolable observance of the aforesaid decrees, by Our own motion, certain knowledge, and mere deliberation, and from the plenitude of Apostolic power, by the tenor of the present letters We perpetually approve and confirm the aforesaid decrees with each and every thing contained in them, and add to them the strength of inviolable Apostolic firmness; and We wholly command that each and every decree of this kind be observed by all whom it concerns or in the future shall in any manner concern, under pain of the nullity of any information, processes, and interpretation constructed otherwise than after the aforesaid prior examination, and of their admission, publication, or interpretation; so that the reception of that information or the construction of the processes, as well as their admission, publication, and interpretation, are to be held as not received, not constructed, not admitted, not published, and not interpreted, and no account whatever of them is thereafter ever to be taken anywhere in any manner. Decreeing that the present letters, etc.”

“Images of men and women who have died with a reputation for sanctity but have not yet obtained the honors of beatification or canonization can neither be placed upon altars in any manner nor be painted outside altars with little crowns, rays, or other signs of sanctity. Their images, or their deeds and acts, can nevertheless be exhibited upon the walls of a church or in stained glass, provided that those images display neither any indication of worship or sanctity nor anything profane or foreign to the custom of the Church.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 Aug. 1894.

“1. Images of Blesseds, even when not principally displayed and when placed as suppliants, as well as statues, paintings, tablets, or writings representing or relating their illustrious deeds, are in no manner to be exposed, without consultation of the Apostolic See, in any churches, sacristies, or oratories, and especially in those in which the Sacrifice of the Mass or other divine offices are performed.

“2. Where it has been granted by the Apostolic See that images, statues, and painted panels may be placed and venerated in churches, the faculty is to be understood as one of placing them upon the wall only, and not upon the altar.

“3. If the erection of altars has been conceded by the same Apostolic See, it is not therefore to be presumed that the faculty of celebrating Mass or reciting the Office concerning the aforesaid Blesseds has been granted; for a specific and express concession concerning these things must precede.

“4. Where worship has been conceded in one place, it is not to be extended to another place without consultation of the Pontiff, whatever other authority may occur.

“5. In places where it has been permitted that the aforesaid Blesseds be venerated by all, the public recitation of the Office is not thereby to be considered permitted, but only private recitation, which does not satisfy the precept of recitation except with regard to those to whom the Apostolic See has granted this.

“6. Likewise, Masses which have been granted to certain persons, namely, to regular or secular priests of some place or monastery, or to priests especially assigned to the service of some church, are by no means to be celebrated by visiting priests, whatever dignity they may possess, even that of the Cardinalate.

“7. Feast days are not to be celebrated in memory of those same Blesseds unless provision has been made by a special Apostolic indult.

“8. Their names are not to be placed except in the calendars of that place alone and of those persons among whom and by whom worship is celebrated with Office and Mass.

“9. In any ecclesiastical prayers to be recited, even in private oratories, particular suffrages of those persons are not to be appended or recited.

“10. In public prayers, those same Blesseds are not to be invoked apart from those prayers granted and approved by the Apostolic See.

“11. Their relics are by no means to be carried about in processions.

“The Sacred Congregation, however, does not intend by the present declaration and command to remove the worship hitherto rendered to Blesseds by the common consent of the Church, or through the course of immemorial time, or through the writings of the Fathers and of holy men, or through the knowledge and toleration of the Apostolic See or of the Ordinaries for a period exceeding the limit of one hundred years, and exhibited to them from that time in a determinate mode and form. But if, within the last one hundred years, worship of this kind has been increased and extended in any part, in that case the same Sacred Congregation commands that it be reduced to its former state; just as it commands that any worship whatsoever outside the aforesaid cases be entirely recalled to those things alone verbally expressed in the Apostolic Indults, under penalties, etc. The decrees also remaining in force—namely, that Blesseds are not to be chosen as Patrons, that their birthdays are not to be celebrated with Octaves, and any others hitherto issued by the Sacred Congregation—which are renewed by the present decree.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 Sept. 1659, n. 1130.

“1. Where it has been granted that Mass concerning some Blessed be celebrated, is it lawful to expose his image and statue, as well as votive tablets, upon the altar?

“2. Whether § 7, Feast days are not to be celebrated in honor of Blesseds, extends to devotional feasts.

“3. Whether indults of reciting the Office with or without an octave and of celebrating Mass concerning Blesseds were revoked by the said Decree of the Sacred Congregation of 27 Sept. 1659.

“4. Whether in churches in which the Office and Mass concerning Blesseds can respectively be recited and celebrated, it is also lawful to expose their relics.

“5. Whether regular Bishops who, by indult of the Apostolic See, enjoy the privileges of their Religion of which they are capable according to their condition can recite the Office concerning Blesseds of their Religion, celebrate Mass in their own cathedrals, and erect an altar to the aforesaid Blesseds. — Resp. To the 1st: In the affirmative. — To the 2nd and 3rd: In the negative. — To the 4th: In the affirmative. — To the 5th: In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 April 1660, n. 1156.

“Whether a Bishop can grant a faculty to the clergy and people desiring to place the bodies of holy Martyrs, which have been deposited with sufficient honor in an altar, in a more precious little shrine or chest and to place them upon the same altar, or to transfer them outside the diocese. — Resp. He can indeed grant permission to transfer the bodies of Saints, which had been given perpetual burial, to a more becoming place in the same church; but he cannot alienate them or transfer them outside the diocese without the authority of the Roman Pontiff.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Most Sacred Relics, 17 Nov. 1670.

“Since the Council of Trent, sess. 25, chapter On Relics, decreed: New Relics are not to be received unless they have been authenticated and approved by the Bishop, certain doubts are proposed to the Sacred Congregation, namely: 1. Whether every Bishop outside Rome is able to authenticate any sacred relics in his diocese. — 2. Whether sacred Relics of Saints authenticated by some Bishop in Italy—if on the part of the signature, seal, and reliquary no indication of error or falsity is discovered—could be rejected by another Bishop beyond the mountains, and even confiscated, or prevented from being exposed to public veneration. — Resp. To the 1st and 2nd: In the affirmative, according to the form of the Council.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Relics, 16 Dec. 1749.

“15. If anyone thinks that astrology or mathematical divination is to be believed, let him be anathema.” Anathemas against the Priscillianists of the plenary Council of Spain and Lusitania, held at Toledo in the year 447 by order of Pope Leo, composed according to the norm of Leo’s Dogmatic Letter.

“Whether magnetism, taken generally and in itself, is to be considered lawful or unlawful. — Resp. Let him consult approved authors with this admonition: every error, divination, and explicit or implicit invocation of the demon having been removed, the mere act of employing physical means otherwise lawful is not morally forbidden, provided that it does not tend toward an unlawful or in any manner depraved end. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things or effects truly supernatural, so that they may be physically explained, is nothing other than an unlawful and heretical deception.” Holy Office, 28 June 1840.

“Cases not rarely occurring: A magnetized person, who is most often of the female sex, enters a state of sleep called magnetic somnambulism so deep that neither the greatest noise at her ears nor any force of iron or fire is able to awaken her. By the magnetizer alone, to whom she has given her consent—for consent is necessary—she is brought to that kind of ecstasy, whether by various touches and gestures when he is present, or by a simple command, and that an interior one, when he is even several leagues distant.

“Then, questioned by a living voice or mentally concerning her own illness or those of absent persons entirely unknown to her, this evidently uneducated person immediately far surpasses physicians in knowledge: she states anatomical matters most accurately; she indicates the cause, seat, and nature of internal diseases in the human body which are most difficult for experts to know and define, and unfolds their progress, variations, and complications, and that in proper terms; often she even foretells exactly the duration of the said diseases and prescribes the simplest and most efficacious remedies.

“If the person concerning whom the magnetized woman is consulted is present, the magnetizer establishes a relation between them by contact; but when the person is absent, a lock of hair from his head supplies his place and suffices. For when this lock alone is applied to the palm of the magnetized woman, she immediately declares what it is—without looking with her eyes—to whom the hairs belong, where the person to whom they belong is now located, what he is doing, and furnishes all the aforesaid information concerning his illness, no differently than if she herself were looking into the body in the manner of physicians.

“Finally, the magnetized woman sees without the eyes, they being veiled, whatever there is; though unable to read, she reads it, whether a book or manuscript, whether open or closed, whether placed upon her head or abdomen. Her words also appear to issue from this region. But when brought out of this state, whether at an interior command of the magnetizer or as if of her own accord at the very point of time foretold by herself, she seems wholly unconscious of the things performed in the paroxysm, however long it may have endured: what things were asked of her, what she answered, and what she suffered—all these things have left no idea in her intellect and not the least trace in her memory.

“Whether, supposing the truth of the aforesaid things, a confessor or pastor can safely permit his penitents or parishioners: 1. to practice animal magnetism endowed with those characteristics and other similar ones as an auxiliary and supplementary art of medicine; — 2. to consent to be placed in that state of magnetic somnambulism; — 3. to consult persons magnetized in that manner, either concerning themselves or concerning others; — 4. to undertake one of the aforesaid three things, having first taken the precaution of formally renouncing from the heart every explicit diabolical pact and every satanic intervention, since, notwithstanding this precaution, the same or some effects have already been obtained by certain persons from magnetism of this kind. — Resp. The use of magnetism, as it is set forth in the case, is not lawful.” Sacred Penitentiary, 1 July 1841.

“Ever since magnetic phenomena began to be made public, the Holy See, having been consulted, issued various decisions through the agency of the Penitentiary and the Holy Office concerning particular cases proposed about the lawfulness and unlawfulness of the use of magnetism. Then, with regard to the general maxim, after profound discussions on Wednesday, 28 July 1847, renewing the resolutions of 23 June 1840, it decreed as follows: Every error, divination, and explicit or implicit invocation of the demon having been removed, the use of magnetism, namely, the mere act of employing physical means otherwise lawful, is not morally forbidden, provided that it does not tend toward an unlawful or in any manner depraved end. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things and effects truly supernatural, so that they may be physically explained, is nothing other than an altogether unlawful and heretical deception.

“Although by such a decree it seemed that what regards physical science was reconciled with the repression of vicious and reprehensible magnetic applications, nevertheless a sad experience has made known the need for more efficacious provisions. For magnetism is not employed in the proper manners and for natural and honest ends; rather, according to the continual complaints of distinguished persons advanced from many cities of the Pontifical State itself, there are magnetizers who dare to apply magnetism to nonnatural ends, with the gravest harm to private and common public morality, making use of women subjected to disorderly postures, and claiming also to divine and reveal hidden and future events. Therefore, since such spectacles are not separated from an unlawful and irreligious illusion, it has been judged necessary wholly to prohibit them and to punish their authors, cooperators, and supporters.

“For this reason all the Bishops and Inquisitors of Our provinces are enjoined to keep watch over this and to proceed summarily by administrative process, the truth of the matter having been examined, after the judgment of God-fearing and learned persons has first been obtained, proportioning the penalties to the offenses, with imprisonment to be determined in duration according to the greater or lesser guilt, and keeping the Supreme Congregation informed, especially when the use of magnetism characterized by heretical circumstances should require a rigorous process according to the sacred canons.

“This circular shall be distributed to the district Vicars, and its exact fulfillment shall be procured.” Holy Office, Rome, 21 May 1856.

“In a general Congregation, the things reported from every quarter by trustworthy men concerning experiments in magnetism having been maturely weighed, the Fathers decreed that the present Encyclical Letter be issued to all Bishops for repressing the abuses of magnetism.

“For it has been ascertained that a certain new kind of superstition is being introduced from magnetic phenomena, which many innovators employ not, as would be proper, for elucidating the physical sciences, but for deceiving and seducing men, thinking that hidden, remote, and future things can be discovered by the art or illusion of magnetism, especially by means of women who depend solely upon the nod of the magnetizer.” (The response already given on 28 July 1847 having then been reported, the Sacred Congregation adds:)

“Although by this general Decree the lawfulness or unlawfulness in the use or abuse of magnetism is sufficiently explained, nevertheless the malice of men has grown to such an extent that, neglecting the lawful study of science and instead pursuing curious things with great loss to souls and detriment to civil society itself, they boast that they have obtained a certain principle of soothsaying and divining. Hence, by the illusions of somnambulism and clear intuition, as they call it, those women, carried away by gestures not always modest, babble that they behold every invisible thing, and dare with rash boldness to institute discourses concerning religion itself, evoke the souls of the dead, receive responses, disclose unknown and distant things, and perform other superstitious things of this kind, certain to procure through divining great gain for themselves and their masters. In all these things, whatever art or illusion they may finally employ, since physical means are ordained to nonnatural effects, there is found an altogether unlawful and heretical deception and a scandal against propriety of morals.

“Therefore, in order efficaciously to restrain so great a crime, most hostile both to religion and to civil society, the pastoral solicitude, vigilance, and zeal of all Bishops ought to be aroused to the greatest extent. Wherefore, insofar as they can with the assistance of divine grace, the local Ordinaries—whether through admonitions of paternal charity, through severe rebukes, or finally through remedies of law, according as, with the circumstances of places, persons, and times considered, they shall judge expedient in the Lord—are to expend every effort in repressing and rooting out abuses of magnetism of this kind, so that the Lord’s flock may be defended from the enemy, the deposit of faith may be kept safe and intact, and the faithful entrusted to them may be preserved from corruption of morals.” Holy Office, 4 Aug. 1856.

“Titius, excluding every agreement with the evil spirit, is accustomed to evoke the souls of the departed. He proceeds thus: alone, without anything else, he directs a prayer to the Chief of the heavenly Host, that he may deign to grant him to speak with the spirit of that particular person. Moments pass; and, having prepared his hand to write, he feels the same hand move, which alerts him to the presence of the spirit. He sets forth what he desires to know, and the hand writes in response to the things proposed by him.

“The responses are all in conformity with the faith and the teaching of the Church concerning the future life. For the most part they regard the state in which the soul of a departed person is found, the need it may have of suffrages, its complaints concerning the ingratitude of relatives, etc. These things being posited, is the conduct of Titius lawful? — Resp. As it is set forth, it is not lawful.” Holy Office, 30 March 1898.

“N. N., Doctor of Medicine, humbly asks whether he can take part in discussions which are now being conducted by the Society of Medical Sciences of N. concerning hypnotic suggestions in the treatment of sick children. There is question not only of discussing facts already accomplished, but also of making new experiments, whether they can be explained by natural reasons or not.

“Resp. As regards experiments already made, they can be permitted, provided that danger of superstition and scandal is absent, and moreover that the petitioner is prepared to abide by the commands of the Holy See and does not act the part of a theologian.

“As regards new experiments, if there is question of facts which certainly surpass the powers of nature, they are not lawful; but if there is doubt concerning this, after a protestation has first been made that one wills to have no part in preternatural facts, they can be tolerated, provided that danger of scandal is absent.” Holy Office, 26 July 1899; M. E., vol. 11, p. 248.

The Sacred Penitentiary, 1 Feb. 1882, declared that even merely passive attendance at consultations and games of spirits is unlawful by reason of scandal and danger to one’s own salvation, which are never wholly absent. Diocesan Synod of Albano, year 1886, part 1, art. 6, n. 9.

“35. Whether he believes that it is not lawful for the laity to take those temporal goods away from them—ecclesiastical persons—by their own power; indeed, that those thus carrying away, removing, and invading the ecclesiastical goods themselves are to be punished as sacrilegious persons, even if the ecclesiastical persons possessing goods of this kind should live badly. — 36. Likewise, whether he believes that an ablation and invasion of this kind, rashly or violently effected or inflicted upon any priest, even one living badly, entails sacrilege.” Articles concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned. Martin V, Bull Inter cunctas.

“Whether nuns, or pious women living a common life under a rule, can, with the permission of the Ordinary, perform the first washing of Corporals, Palls, and Purificators. — Resp. In the negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 Sept. 1857.

“If anyone, with the execrable ardor of avarice intervening, has acquired through money a prebend, priory, deanery, honor, or some ecclesiastical promotion, or any ecclesiastical sacrament, such as chrism or holy oil, or the consecrations of altars or churches, let him be deprived of the honor badly acquired, and let buyer, seller, and intermediary be struck with the mark of infamy. And let nothing be exacted from anyone either for sustenance or under the pretext of any custom, either before or after, nor let him presume to give anything; for it is simoniacal. Rather, let him freely and without any diminution enjoy the dignity and benefice conferred upon him.” Second Lateran Council, year 1139, canon 2.

That nothing be exacted for holy oil, chrism, visitation and anointing of the sick, funerals, burial, baptism, the Eucharist, the blessing of those marrying, and other Sacraments and blessings was established by Leo IX at the Synod of Reims, Urban II at Piacenza, Callistus II at Toulouse and Reims, the Second Lateran Council, canons 2 and 24, and the Fourth Lateran Council, canon 66. This is to be understood of those who exact something after the manner of selling the sacred thing itself, or as a provision for avoiding the danger of simony.

“Following the examples of the Holy Fathers and renewing the duties of Our office, by the authority of the Apostolic See We prohibit in every manner that anyone be ordained or promoted in the Church of God through money. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this manner, let him be wholly deprived of the dignity acquired.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, year 1123, canon 1.

“Since from the fact that certain persons expose the relics of Saints for sale and display them everywhere, the Christian religion has often been disparaged; lest it be disparaged in the future, by the present decree We establish that henceforth ancient relics are in no manner to be displayed outside a reliquary, nor exposed for sale. Moreover, let no one presume publicly to venerate those newly found unless they have first been approved by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, etc.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 62, On the Relics of Saints. [The source prints “Lateran VI”; corrected here to “Lateran IV,” the council held in 1215.]

“His Holiness … strictly commanded that the faithful of Christ should not presume under any pretext, even that of redeeming sacred relics and remains of Saints, to buy or purchase them, whether in the City or outside it, even though they be enclosed in a little container and secured with a seal. Furthermore, he commanded that whoever should find sacred relics offered for sale is to admonish the local Ordinaries, whose duty it will be to make opportune provision. For this reason Our same Most Holy Lord ordered this decree to be made and published….” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 21 Dec. 1878; A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 365. Letters of the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar, by command of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, were likewise given to the Bishops concerning the sacrilegious commerce in false relics, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of February 1881; A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 39.

“Can the custom of exacting an annual payment be sustained in the case?—an annual payment of 35 cents to be exacted from each parish for purchasing the material of the Holy Oils and remunerating the ministers distributing them. — Resp. The custom can be tolerated.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 Dec. 1879; A. S. S., vol. 13, p. 180 ff.

“27. All are simoniacs who bind themselves to pray for others who assist them in temporal things.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned at the Council of Constance.

“22. It is not contrary to justice not to confer ecclesiastical benefices gratuitously, because the collator conferring those ecclesiastical benefices, with money intervening, does not exact it for the collation of the benefice, but as for a temporal emolument which he was not bound to confer upon you.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“45. To give a temporal thing for a spiritual thing is not simony when the temporal thing is not given as a price, but only as a motive for conferring or effecting the spiritual thing, or even when the temporal thing is only a gratuitous compensation for the spiritual thing, or conversely. — 46. And this also has place even if the temporal thing is the principal motive for giving the spiritual thing, indeed even if it is the end of the spiritual thing itself, so that it is esteemed more highly than the spiritual thing.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

“Monks are not to be received into a monastery for a price…. But if anyone, having been exacted from, shall have given something for his reception, let him not ascend to sacred orders. Moreover, let him who accepted it be punished by deprivation of his office.” Third Ecumenical Lateran Council, year 1179, canon 10. Likewise Urban II at the Synod of Troia, canon 7.

“Can one who buys crosses, medals, etc., in order to distribute them after they have been blessed with the application of indulgences, ask their price from those receiving them without fault or without danger of losing the indulgences? Are they lost only when someone shall have made those things his own property and used them with the intention of gaining the indulgences? — Resp. In the negative to the first part; the second does not require a response.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 22 Feb. and 12 July 1847; 2 Oct. 1840; 15 May 1886.

“Whether, 1st, things enriched with indulgences ought to be handed over to the faithful wholly gratis; so that, 2nd, if anything is required or received under any title whatsoever, whether of price, exchange, gift, or alms, the indulgences are thereby lost. — Resp. In the affirmative to each part.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 16 July 1887.

“1st. Whether crosses, rosaries, etc., lose the indulgences if someone purchasing them entrusts to the seller himself the procuring of their blessing in his name, intending to pay the price and the expenses of transmission in the very act in which those things, now blessed, are handed over to him. — And insofar as the response is negative: 2nd. Whether crosses and rosaries lose the indulgences if someone, foreseeing that they will be requested already blessed on a certain occasion—for example, a great gathering of the faithful—takes care beforehand that they be blessed for those who will request them after reimbursing the price expended. — Resp. To the 1st: In the negative. — To the 2nd: In the affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 10 July 1896.

“In order that there might be a uniform norm in exactions for various acts of noncontentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the burden of immoderate fees and the occasion of many controversies might be removed, Pope Innocent XI enacted a law which, commonly called the Innocentiana, aptly moderated the manner of exactions of this kind.

“But since this law was written in the Italian language, and for that reason, according to the more common opinion of the learned, was said properly to affect only the dioceses of Italy and the adjacent islands, while supplying to the others merely a suitable rule of conduct, it did not appear that provision had been made universally for the inconveniences for the removal of which that law had been issued.

“Moreover, almost three centuries after the promulgation of the law, the value and estimation of money having changed and society existing in new and diverse circumstances, full observance of the Innocentiana became difficult and sometimes even incongruous in the dioceses of Italy themselves. Hence Ordinaries, in a number increasing daily, began to request that new and particular exactions differing from the Innocentiana be approved or tolerated….

“Now the following three doubts, in which the whole question seemed to be comprehended, were called up for examination, namely:

“1st. Whether and what fees can be imposed according to the rules of prudence and justice in sacramental matters, and especially matrimonial matters, and likewise in matters of benefices.

“2nd. Whether, after certain general norms have been issued, the specific determination of fees in individual dioceses is to be left to the judgment of the Ordinaries; or whether it is instead to be prescribed that this matter be treated in provincial synods and, insofar as synods cannot be held, in meetings of Bishops to be held particularly for this purpose in individual provinces, and in Italy in individual regions, under the rule, namely, that insofar as possible a uniform fee is to be established in individual provinces or regions and submitted for approval to the Sacred Congregation of the Council.

“3rd. Whether and what other provisions are to be employed concerning this matter.

“Resp. To the 1st: In the affirmative, but in such a manner that, as regards acts which directly concern the administration of the sacraments, the provision of chapter 42 of the Decretals, On Simony, is to be observed, namely, that the sacraments of the Church be conferred freely and pious customs be observed.

“But as regards the remaining acts which do not directly concern the administration of the sacraments, such as dispensation from the proclamations of marriage, permission to confer baptism in private homes, and other things of this kind:

“1st. Praiseworthy customs are to be observed, and prudent consideration is to be had of places, times, and persons.

“2nd. The truly poor are to be exempted from any expenses.

“3rd. Fees ought not to be so burdensome that they deter the faithful from the reception of the sacraments.

“4th. As regards marriage specifically, the fees themselves are to be remitted in cases in which there is danger that the faithful may fall into concubinage.

“5th. Finally, as regards ecclesiastical benefices, the fees ought not to be proportionally incommensurate with the revenues of the benefices.

“To the 2nd: In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second.

“To the 3rd: In the affirmative; and the schedule or list of fees, drawn up in the manner and according to the norms set forth above, is to be transmitted as soon as possible to the Sacred Congregation of the Council for approval, which is to be granted only by way of experiment—for the dioceses of Europe, for five years; but for the others, for ten years.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 10 June 1896.

Cf. n. 508.