Chapter VI — On the worship of relics

I. Just as sacred images, so also the relics of the Saints have been defined as worthy of adoration, in several Councils: the Second of Nicaea, act. 3; the Fifth of Carthage, canon 5; the Second Lateran, ch. 62; and Trent, session 25, decree 2, among many others. This worship is clearly gathered from Scripture also. By contact with the bones of Elisha, a man was restored to life (4 Kings 13). Who would say that the bones of a Prophet, by which God worked so great a miracle, are not worthy of veneration? Isaiah proclaims that his own sepulcher shall be glorious (ch. 11). Who but a heretic would call the perpetual custom of venerating the sacred sepulcher of Christ, running from the very beginnings of the Church, a monument to superstition? Did not the woman with the issue of blood obtain her health merely by touching the hem of Christ's garment — a faith and an act of reverence that Christ himself commended? Did not the faithful apply St. Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons to the sick, to heal them (Acts 19)? Were these handkerchiefs of Paul's not held in greater price and veneration than the ordinary belongings of other men?

II. When Christ (Matt. 23) reproaches the Pharisees and Scribes for adorning the tombs of the just, he condemns the hypocrisy involved, not the practice of honoring them — and condemns them for doing a good thing with a wicked and deceitful mind, as Ambrose and Jerome explain in commenting on this passage of Matthew. God likewise hid the tomb of Moses from the Jews, because they were too much inclined to idolatry and superstition — a danger far removed from Christians.

III. That the worship of sacred relics prevailed from the earliest ages of the Church is proved by clear and celebrated testimonies which Catholic theologians adduce. In the second century of the Church, as Eusebius records (Ecclesiastical History, Bk. IV, ch. 15), the Church of Smyrna venerated the relics of St. Polycarp the Martyr, who suffered around the year of Christ 167. Christians also venerated the chair once occupied at Jerusalem by James the Apostle, as the same Eusebius relates (Bk. VII, ch. 19). By the fourth century, this worship flourished throughout the whole Church — a fact the Lutherans and Calvinists themselves are forced to admit. Yet how astonishing, how altogether beyond measure, is the mad audacity of these heretics, who prate that the Bishops and Fathers of the third century had already fallen away from the faith of their forebears and lapsed into idolatry! If you ask them for proof of so great a change, they can produce nothing but the fact that they themselves have not read that the worship of relics was already in use in the first three centuries. Calvin, then, and the Lutherans and their followers, are pretending to understand better, after thirteen and more centuries, the discipline of that earliest age than did the holy bishops, and the whole Church of Christians who lived nearest to it! Who but a madman would say such a thing? These matters have been treated with the richest erudition by Natalis Alexander, Bellarmine, and countless others, whose findings are foreign to our present purpose.

IV. Sacred relics are to be honored with the same worship as the persons whose relics they are, since these relics represent the persons whose bodily parts they are. Just as we adore images on account of their prototypes, so too we venerate relics on account of the persons they belonged to. Let us hear the Angelic Doctor, who writes thus (III Part, q. 25, art. 6): "It must be said that, as Augustine says in Book I of the City of God, ch. 13: if a father's garment, or ring, or anything of this kind, is dearer to his children the greater their affection for their parents, then in no way are their bodies to be despised, which are certainly nearer and more closely joined to us than any garment. It is manifest, moreover, that we ought to hold the Saints of God in veneration as members of Christ, sons of God, and our friends and intercessors. And therefore we ought to venerate their relics, of whatever kind, in their memory — and especially their bodies, which were the temples and instruments of the Holy Spirit dwelling and working within them, and which are destined to be conformed to Christ's own body through the glorious resurrection. Wherefore God himself fittingly honors such relics, by working miracles in their presence."

V. Question I. What is meant by the term "relics"? Response: Sacred relics are portions of the bodies of Saints, such as hair, bones, flesh, nails, blood, teeth, ashes; and also garments, veils, cloths, and other things that touched their bodies or which the Saints used.

VI. Question II. Is it lawful to adore the worms into which the bodies of the Saints decompose? Response: Vázquez (On Adoration, Bk. III, disp. 3, ch. 8, n. 114), Sánchez (Bk. II, ch. 43, n. 1), and Castropalao (disp. 1, punct. 1, n. 1) affirm this, provided the intention is upright; for since the ashes and dust into which the bodies of the Saints dissolve may be honored, why not, they say, the worms as well?

VII. This opinion is commonly rejected. And provided the same reasoning applies to dust and ashes as to public worship — the very authors cited concede that this too is not at all permitted. No adoration, public or private, of such worms is lawful. For although such worms are generated from the bodies of the Saints, they nonetheless carry an indecency that prevents their being worshipped. It is indecent to honor the Saints in something so repellent. Those worms are, moreover, foul creatures; and being alive, they would seem to be adored for their own sake. The adoration of these worms, whether public or private, must therefore be rejected as an imprudent superstition. And indeed, if private adoration were permitted, why not public as well? And if public adoration is judged unworthy, why not private too?

VIII. In order for sacred relics to be adored with public worship, they must belong to someone canonized or beatified by the Church. For since no one can be publicly worshipped as a Saint unless he has first been solemnly entered by the Church into the roll of the Saints, still less can his relics be worshipped, since relics are honored on account of the Saints to whom they belong.

IX. Question III. What certainty is required in order that relics be venerated as belonging to some particular Saint? Response: In order to venerate relics prudently, we must know that they are in fact relics — that is, portions or things belonging to some Saint or Blessed. Our worship must be prudent, lest we worship profane things as sacred. This certainty, however, need only be moral certainty. In moral matters, only moral certainty is to be required; and this suffices for a prudent act, as all theologians agree. What testimonies are required to obtain this moral certainty cannot easily be defined in general. A distinction must first be drawn between public and private worship. For public worship to be paid to relics, the souls of the deceased must have been entered into the roll of the Saints or Blessed by the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, the sacred relics must have been officially recognized by the bishop before being exposed to public worship. For your own private certainty, however, that a relic belongs to a Saint canonized by the Church, it suffices that it has been so declared by the bishop. For private devotion, it is enough that a trustworthy and serious man attest that this relic belongs to some Saint — provided, however, that no arguments to the contrary arise. In this matter two extremes must be avoided: an overly easy credulity, and an excessively severe scrutiny. Since instances of fraud and imposture do not occur so rarely, greater care in giving credence is called for. But if no prudent suspicion of trickery or fraud arises, there is no reason to withhold belief. Why should you reject the testimony of a serious and trustworthy man, unless you have an equal or comparable ground for doubt? "Many," you say, "frauds and deceptions are perpetrated by impostors out of greed and gain." True enough — but from this it only follows that you must exercise caution and prudence before giving your assent. In every kind of commerce, frauds and deceptions occur through the wickedness of dishonest men; must we therefore abstain from all society and dealings? Bring, then, to the veneration of relics the same prudence you exercise in other serious affairs.

X. Question IV. Which relics may a bishop approve, so that they may be publicly exposed to worship? Response: As already indicated, only the bishop can officially recognize relics and approve them for public worship — namely, those belonging to some Saint or Blessed canonized by the Roman Pontiff, as is held from the chapter Fin. on relics and the veneration of Saints. This holds true of recently discovered relics. As for the relics of ancient Saints, which have always been adored by the universal custom of the Christian people, there is no reason why bishops should not approve them, even though those Saints were not entered into the roll of the Saints by the usual solemn rite of canonization by the Roman Pontiff — since this perennial and universal tradition is regarded as equivalent to a solemn canonization. The Council of Trent decrees this. If some grave doubt or difficulty should arise concerning the abuse of relics, the bishop, before he settles the controversy, is to await the judgment of the Metropolitan and the neighboring bishops in a provincial Council — yet in such a way that nothing new, or hitherto unusual in the Church, is decreed without consulting the Most Holy Roman Pontiff (session 25, on the invocation of the Saints).

XI. Question V. Is it lawful to wear authentic relics suspended from the neck? Response: All agree that this practice is lawful, since it redounds to the honor and veneration of the Saints whose relics they are. But for this practice to be lawful, there must be no danger of indecency or pollution — and such danger is, as a rule, absent. For however much the wearer himself may sin, the relics themselves are not thereby polluted, nor do they suffer indecency; rather, indecency or pollution of relics occurs only when irreverence, mockery, or contempt is exercised directly against the worship of the relics themselves. Hence one who commits fornication, theft, or some other crime while wearing them is not to be called sacrilegious with regard to the relics he carries with him for devotion's sake, since these sins are not opposed to that worship; nothing prevents a thief, an adulterer, or other wicked Catholics from venerating their relics, however many crimes they may commit besides. That some measure of irreverence attaches to a Christian adorned with these sacred symbols offending God in this way, no one can deny; but there is no solid ground for calling it a grave sacrilege.

XII. Question VI. Does one who steals sacred relics out of devotion sin? Response: The common opinion is that a Christian who steals sacred relics from an infidel commits no sin at all — because he removes them from an irreverent and unjust possessor, and unjust exposure to pollution, and vindicates them from one who unjustly holds them, since it is unbelievers who hold these sacred pledges. But one who steals relics from another Catholic undoubtedly commits a sacrilegious theft. For although relics are not subject to a temporal price, they are nevertheless held in such great esteem by the faithful that it constitutes a grave loss to the possessor who unwillingly suffers deprivation, however small the relic, since he is stripped of so great a treasure. What, then, of the malice of such theft — is it not also a grave sacrilege in itself? The gravity of relic-theft is measured not by size or bulk, but by rarity and the esteem in which the relic is held. The smallest particle of the Holy Cross, or of the Crown of Thorns, or of some other rare relic, is held in the highest price; and one deprived of it against his will is afflicted with great sorrow and grave harm. The theft of such relics, therefore, even in the smallest quantity, is a grave sacrilege. Nor should this give occasion to quibble that not all relics of the Saints are of the same value — since we measure the gravity of the theft not by the absolute worth of sacred relics considered in themselves, but by the injury done to the possessor by such theft: for all sacred relics of any kind whatsoever transcend the bounds of any temporal price. But because one relic may be harder or easier to obtain than another, the one deprived of it suffers greater or lesser distress and injury accordingly.

XIII. Question VII. Is it lawful for a prince waging war to carry off relics, and transfer them elsewhere? Response: Fr. Juan Fernández (On Relics, Bk. II, ch. 8, art. 3) affirms this, on the grounds that goods lawfully taken in a just war belong to the victors, even as between Christian states. But this opinion is rightly rejected by theologians. For relics are goods of the Church, which cannot be seized on account of a crime; they are exempt from lay jurisdiction, being annexed to the Church and destined for the worship of God. Custom too confirms this: for princes themselves refrain from despoiling such sacred repositories even in cities lawfully taken by right of war. A just war concerns temporal rights, not spiritual ones.

XIV. Question VIII. Is the sale and purchase of relics lawful? Response: The negative opinion follows from what has already been said. Spiritual things are subject to no temporal price, and whoever purchases spiritual things for a temporal price is stained with the taint of simony. In the use and gift of relics, then, all suspicion of base gain must be avoided. Wherefore the Council of Trent (session 25, decree on the invocation of the Saints) prescribes: "In the veneration of relics, let all base gain be eliminated." From this, however, it does not follow that it is forbidden to purchase sacred relics from unbelievers by paying a price; for the price is not paid for the value of the relics, but so that the relics may be withdrawn from the irreverence and profanation of unbelievers. It is the vexation that is bought off, not the sacred thing itself, that is purchased. Nor does it seem unlawful to give some money to the custodian of relics, so that he may allow the sacred relics to be viewed — provided this money is given without any bargain, and as compensation for the inconvenience and bodily labor the custodian undergoes, and as a token of gratitude. It would, however, be unlawful to strike an explicit or tacit bargain to induce a custodian to show relics for a set price.

XV. Question IX. Is it a sin of simony to expose sacred relics to be viewed, so that more generous alms may thereby be obtained? Response: Some theologians distinguish a twofold intention in one who exposes relics: one more principal, the other less so. If the intention of gathering alms is the less principal one, no fault at all is incurred; but sin is committed if this intention becomes the principal one. Others hold this to be absolutely unlawful. On the contrary, Castropalao (tract. 8, disp., punct. 6, n. 18), Leander (disp. 4, q. 33), and the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 10, punct. 3, n. 115) hold that one who, even principally, aims at the acquisition of alms by exposing relics does not sin mortally — provided no bargain is involved — because, they say, exposing relics does not amount to selling them, nor is there any base gain, since no pact or agreement intervenes. One who moves the faithful by this intention merely intends that alms be given, not that they be obligated to give them. But to intend the liberal bestowal of alms through the exposition of relics is not simony. This will therefore be lawful, or at least not a mortal fault: for, say the Salmanticenses, "at most a venial defect is present here, since a certain relaxation from the strict end of the virtue of religion is granted."

XVI. This opinion does not convince me, since the Council of Trent prescribes that in the veneration of relics all base gain is to be principally eliminated. Now one who principally intends gain in this veneration does not eliminate all base gain — rather, such a person really pursues gain through the ample bestowal of alms, with a view to which, and for which very purpose, he exposes the relics to be viewed. This man has a corrupt intention. What, then, is missing for it to be sacrilegious simony? "A pact and agreement," the Salmanticenses reply. But this proves nothing more than that there is no real, extrinsic simony on both sides. It shows only that those who give alms are free of fault, since they offer their goods to God in memory of the Saints without any wicked intention. But can he who exposes relics for mere and pure gain not sin, absent such a pact? Is mental simony not a sin? He who mentally intends a temporal gain from a spiritual thing, and with this as his principal intention exposes relics to be viewed — on what ground can he be excused from mental simony, merely because he does not intend the alms as a price, but as a free gift? This distinction contributes little to clearing such an intention of the taint of simony. For whoever principally intends a temporal thing in exchange for a spiritual one is truly guilty of simony. What more is there to say? Do not the Salmanticenses themselves admit that this intention is disordered, and not free of venial fault? But if they admit that this intention departs from the right end and order of religion, why should this be only a venial, and not a mortal, intention — since a temporal gain sought for a sacred thing is by its very nature vicious matter, and a grave one? One who principally intends this, therefore, sins gravely.

XVII. Question X. Is any penalty established against thieves of relics? Response: Suárez (Vol. 5, on III Part, disp. 22, sect. 2, n. 5) and Sánchez (Bk. II, ch. 43, n. 6, punct. 21) deny that any penalty in common law has been established. Others, however, commonly hold that excommunication has been established by Gregory XIII, in the constitution beginning Pontificia sollicitudo, chiefly against those who steal sacred relics from Roman cemeteries, crypts, or catacombs — a penalty which the same Pontiff extends against all who steal sacred relics from any sacred place whatsoever. Superiors of Regulars are taught to be subject to this penalty when they cut off particles from the bodies of the Blessed resting in their own churches, in order to give them away or alienate them — since such relics are reckoned among the precious goods of the community. This, however, is to be understood of notable relics enclosed in reliquaries.

XVIII. Question XI. Is it lawful to venerate certain [wax] Agnus Dei [medallions]? Response: All Catholics affirm that such sacred Lambs are worthy of veneration, like other sacred things; for they are designated by the Supreme Pontiffs, with a solemn rite, for sacred worship, and are images of God, whose veneration he has repeatedly confirmed by many miracles.

XIX. Question XII. Is it forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to paint, sell, or touch these Lambs? Response: Gregory XIII, under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, forbade the painting of these sacred Lambs with colors or vermilion, or adding gold or any color to them — the wording of this constitution being "With all due diligence." It is not, however, at all forbidden to enclose them in reliquaries, even precious ones, provided they are kept white and unblemished, with no color or vermilion added. As for their sale, it is certain among all Catholics that sacred things are not subject to sale or purchase. It is, however, lawful to receive and give a price for the material of which such wax Lambs are made — just as candles and chalices, and other sacred things, are sold for the material alone. Care must be taken, though, that avarice and simony do not lurk beneath this pretext of "material": for if anyone, under pretext of the material or the reliquary in which the Lamb is enclosed, raised the price beyond its just limits — knowing beforehand that the buyer intends the price to be understood as for the sacred object — he would not escape the taint of sacrilegious avarice. As to whether it is afterward lawful for laypeople to touch these wax Lambs, some deny it. But it seems to me that men and women commit no fault at all who touch them reverently, out of devotion or necessity — and I hold the same regarding other sacred relics which the faithful carry with them and keep habitually at hand. It would indeed seem quite absurd to condemn as guilty of fault those Catholics who, out of devotion to relics, wear them suspended from the neck, merely for the reverent contact this involves. What if the reliquary in which the enclosed Lamb is kept should break? Let laypeople, then — and clergy too — abstain from touching them in a profane and less decent manner; but let them kiss and touch them when devotion or necessity requires.

XX. Question XIII. [Are sacred vessels, temples, priestly vestments, and the like, being dedicated to the worship of God, worthy of the adoration of latria?] Response: That sacred vessels, churches, priestly vestments, and other such things, being wholly dedicated to the worship of God, are worthy of the adoration of latria — since God is worshipped in them — is plain, and no one denies it. This too was defined in the Seventh General Council, act 6, where it is stated: "Lord, besides thee we know no other; we call upon thy name..." — bearing witness to the choirs of Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and holy Fathers, and to the hosts of the blessed Angels. "...that our senses may, for thy glory, be led to a due sense of thy majesty, we have the figure of thy divine Cross, the Gospel narrative, and the painting of images; we likewise have many other consecrated vessels, which, because consecrated in thy name, we kiss." See how, in a few words, the Council removes all danger of idolatry, declaring that Catholics adore none but God, one and Three; that we make use of images to raise and rouse our senses to the worship of God; and that for this end we have the sacred books of the Gospel, sacred vessels, and other ornaments, and kiss them as consecrated things. Just as, then, we adore images of God with the worship of latria, so too we honor with the same adoration churches, sacred vessels, and other ornaments dedicated to the divine service. Epiphanius teaches this yet more clearly, speaking in the name of the Council in the passage cited: this is proper to heretics [to misconstrue]. We, therefore, who show latria to God alone, in spirit and in truth, trusting in him, embrace and venerate whatever is consecrated to the one God — whether it be the venerable figure of the divine Cross, or the sacred Book of the Gospels, or a venerable image, or sacred vessels; and we show them an honorific adoration on this account, that we may hope for the sanctification to be rendered us by them. For, says the Psalmist (Ps. 98), "Adore ye his footstool, for it is holy." For this reason Gregory the Theologian, in a homily on Bethlehem, says: honor the very site of such things, present as it is before us. For sacred images of God and of Christ the Lord are worshipped with the adoration of latria for this reason: that they are sacred symbols instituted to lead us to the worship of God — and are therefore to be adored with that same worship by which God himself is worshipped, both the manger and the divine mysteries there represented being made holy by their sacred consecration. Consult, if you wish, St. Thomas also (II-II, q. 99, art. 3). The heretics' trifles have already been refuted above.

XXI. Question XIV. How may chalices, corporals, and other sacred things be touched by the laity? Response: There exist many decrees forbidding the laity to touch sacred vessels — chalices, palls, corporals, chasubles, and other ornaments blessed by a bishop — notably the chapter Sacratas, Dist. 23, and likewise the chapter Sancta haec apostolica. These decrees, however, do not now have full force in every respect. For it has become received by common usage that both men and women may lawfully touch a chasuble, or other sacred vestments blessed by a bishop — especially when there is a just cause for washing or repairing them, and so on. Unconsecrated vessels, too, may be touched reverently by the laity, though not after their consecration. Hence the laity cannot, without at least venial fault, touch a consecrated chalice — even an empty one — the paten, or the corporals. Suárez proves this: for the Supreme Pontiffs have granted a privilege to the lay Religious of the Minors and of the Society of Jesus, permitting them to touch directly the empty chalice, paten, and other consecrated vessels, especially while serving in churches — which is proof that, by common law, they otherwise could not touch them at all. Those, however, who have received the first tonsure are not forbidden this contact. The chalice containing the Blood of Christ, however, may lawfully be touched, apart from necessity, only by a priest or deacon. In case of urgent necessity, even the Body of Christ itself may be touched by the laity — as when a consecrated host falls to the ground in the absence of a priest: it must then be raised by someone with the utmost reverence, and handed to the priest as soon as possible, to be replaced in the sacrarium. Similarly, if a consecrated particle should fall into a woman's lap while she is receiving communion, it ought to be raised by her, reverently, rather than by the priest. For the Lord, who allows his own most sacred Body to be touched by the fingers of that same woman, does not disdain — when urgent necessity requires it, for the sake of preserving modesty and avoiding danger and scandal — to be touched by her tongue, mouth, and throat.

XXII. We have said that corporals and purificators may be touched by laypeople of the Regular Orders in virtue of privilege, while serving the sacristy. May they also wash them? Authors commonly distinguish three washings. Several privileges are usually cited by which lay Brothers of the Regular Orders, and also nuns, may touch and wash corporals and purificators. Setting all these aside, however, one must abide by the custom that prevails everywhere: namely, that the first washing is to be done by priests or deacons. From the privileges adduced in favor of lay Brothers, nothing more can be drawn than that they may touch these things while serving the sacristy — not that they may also wash them. The laws forbidding such washing, moreover, are quite clear, and are only reinforced by the very practice and custom just mentioned. It must therefore be held as certain that the first washing of corporals and purificators is reserved to priests and deacons — and this is the more common opinion among theologians.

XXIII. Question XV. Can sacred things lawfully be converted to profane uses? Response: It is certain, first, that it is a grave crime to use sacred things, so long as they retain their proper form, for profane purposes — as if one were to use a chalice as a common drinking-cup at table; such use would be a manifest act of contempt. King Belshazzar was struck dead by God for using the vessels of the house of God at his banquet-table — since, as Leviticus 27 has it, whatever has once been consecrated shall be most holy unto the Lord. See St. Thomas (II-II, q. 88, art. 11); the matter is so well established that it needs no lengthy discussion here.

XXIV. The opinion of Juan de Dicastillo, therefore, is to be rejected outright — an opinion he draws from Henríquez (Treatise I on the Sacrifice of the Mass, disp. 4, n. 231), who teaches that it does not appear to be mortally sinful, but rather a custom, to use such vestments for decent theatrical performances (which I would understand as sacred plays) even within a church — and this pleases me, he adds, especially for representing some holy Priest, Deacon, or the like, the matter being left to prudent judgment. This "custom," which Dicastillo alone seems to know of, and which is unknown to everyone else, is so evidently a sacrilegious abuse, stripped of every circumstance, that it needs no proof. What could be more wicked than to bring sacred vestments and vessels dedicated to God onto the stage? See the Council of Trent, session 25, decree on the choice of books. Dicastillo attempts to excuse this on the grounds that it covers the indecency of the stage with the sanctity of the church. But whoever brings sacred vestments onto a profane stage commits sacrilege. And what of those who turn churches into theaters, altars into stage-sets — who profane churches together with their sacred vestments — who allow the shameless art of comic actors and players to be practiced in sacred places? Are these free of iniquity? Pious ears shrink from such things, and they deserve rejection with detestation rather than mere argument. Sacred things are to be represented with a sacred rite approved by the Church — not a comic and theatrical one.

XXV. Although sacred things lose their blessing and consecration when broken or cut apart, it does not therefore follow that it is lawful to convert their use to something profane. The Angelic Doctor proves this by the authority of the canons (III Part, q. 83, art. 5, ad 5): "Because they also acquire a certain spiritual power through consecration, it is laid down, in the same collection, ch. 36, 'Ligna Ecclesiae': 'The timbers of a dedicated church are not to be put to any other use, except for [building] another church, or to be burned, or [given] to the brethren in a monastery; but they must not be given over to the work of laypeople.'" And in the same place it is written (ch. 39): "The altar-cloth, the chair, the candlestick, and the veil, if worn out through use, are to be committed to fire; and their ashes are to be placed in the baptistery, or thrown into a wall or into the joints of pavements, lest they be defiled by the feet of those entering." It is likewise added that the timber of a demolished church is not to be applied to the common uses of monasteries — not for kitchen fires, nor for propping up vines — but rather to the chapter-house, dormitory, or other religious places, so that the reverence due to sacred things may be preserved. What is laid down in the cited chapter concerning the altar-cloth and chair applies equally to priestly vestments and other church ornaments. Sylvester adds (s.v. Benedictio, q. 7) that the stones of a demolished church may be converted to the buildings of monasteries. Consult Suárez (III Part, disp. 81, sect. 1), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 22, ch. 10, punct. 12), and Azor (Vol. II, Institutions, Bk. IX, ch. 9, q. 7).

XXVI. Question XVI. May such sacred vessels, once broken, lawfully be sold? Response: In order for such vessels to be converted to profane use and offered for sale, they must entirely lose their former form, so that nothing of it remains — so that only the common material of gold or silver appears. For then, since nothing sacred can be discerned in them, there is nothing to be profaned either. It is not, therefore, free of irreverence and sacrilege to sell — or even pawn for sacred uses — chalices under the pretext that they are being sold not as consecrated objects, but merely as so much precious material. The circumstances must be weighed, however, especially the purpose and the necessity involved. Sacred vestments, even when cut up, must not be converted to profane uses or sold — because their material cannot, unlike that of a chalice or other vessel, be entirely transmuted. They must, therefore, either be burned, or used to mend other sacred vestments. As to when precisely a chalice or other sacred vessel and church ornament loses its blessing and consecration, consult Barbosa (On the Power of the Bishop, Part II, alleg. 27).

XXVII. Question XVII. Can profane things be transformed for sacred use? Response: Theologians commonly affirm this, provided that, once their former artificial form has been removed, they are reshaped into a form suitable and customary for sacred functions. No difficulty stands in the way; indeed, all sacred ornaments are made from ordinary material to begin with. This is confirmed by common practice, whereby the precious garments of laywomen — married or widowed — are in the end converted into priestly chasubles and other church ornaments. For sacred blessing removes every profane stain. Even the Popes themselves have on occasion consecrated private houses to God as churches; and Boniface IV converted that vast and most magnificent Pantheon — once a pagan temple — into a church, its outward form unchanged, but with blessing and consecration added. St. Pope Marcellus and [St.] Cecilia likewise transformed [pagan buildings]; and Urban...