Case XXXIX: Replating an Indulgenced Cross

Applied correction from Woywod’s opening insert: Case XXXIX, page 193.—The last paragraph should be omitted since the new Code does not require a re-consecration of the chalice and paten, for Canon 1305 states that the chalice and paten do not lose their consecration when the gold plating wears off or when replated.

A pilgrim to Rome had a small cross blessed by the Holy Father and endowed with the indulgence toties quoties for the dying. Upon his return home, he removed from the crucifix the body, had it silver-plated, replaced it and presented it to a friend. Subsequently he inquired of a priest whether the great indulgences were still attached to the cross? What answer should he receive?

The pilgrim should be told that the great indulgences (excepting the case stated below) are surely still attached to the Cross. Two reasons may cause a doubt: (1) because the pilgrim removed the body from the Cross; (2) because he had it silver-plated. Both things may be done without interference with the indulgence. The first did no harm, because in the case of crucifixes the blessing is bestowed upon the image of Christ, so that this, without losing the indulgences, can even be attached to another cross of any material whatsoever (S. C. Ind.; April 11, 1850).

Neither is the silver-plating of any consequence, as is clear from the generally accepted rule about blessed articles. Indulgences cease on account of change of material of the blessed object only in case the change is an essential one (Beringer, Indulgences, p. 340, 1oth edition). An alteration is, in the unanimous opinion of theologians, essential when the added material, in comparison to the material of which the blessed article consisted, is of the same or greater quantity, because in any other case it may truthfully be said that the article consists morally of the same material as before. Without doubt this is so in the case of silver-plating, in which the thin silver coating is generally far less in quantity than the material of the blessed article, so that the latter, even after the plating, in a moral sense remains the same as in form so in material.

We said generally: for if in our case a heavy silver-plating of the crucifix should have brought about that the silver covering exceeded in quantity the material of the image of Christ, or equalled it, then, according to the stated rule, the indulgences are no longer on the Cross.

That, with exception of this case, the blessing and indulgence continue, follows from the rubrics about analogous blessings of churches and articles of divine worship. It is quite certain that a church building does not forfeit its blessing by being white-washed, or even if given a substantial coating, with marble plates, etc.

It is true that a chalice after being regilt inside must be reconsecrated, and from this it would seem to follow that in our case the blessing would have to be repeated. This is not the fact, for several reasons. Our case is one of simple blessing, while the chalice is consecrated by blessing and anointing, and, furthermore, the reason of the precept to rebless a chalice after regilding is not the view that the blessing of the chalice had been lost through regilding, or because the plating per adjunctionem non fit sacra, as both would be in opposition to the teaching on the subject of blessings: but because the chalice is consecrated on account of contact with the Blood of Christ; hence, when its surface has not been consecrated, it is necessarily required that the chalice be consecrated anew. Apud. S. Alphonsum l. V. n. 370 dub. 2.

For this reason an exterior regilding of the Cuppa of the chalice may evidently take place without interfering with the blessing.