Blessings

52. Notion and division. 1. A blessing is a prayer moving another to confer some good on someone.

One blessing is called lay, which is made by a secular person, especially if he has some title over the thing or person to be blessed, as a father and mother have over their children; another is called ecclesiastical, which is made by an ecclesiastical person in the name of the Church. Blessings which are performed by lay persons are not sacramentals, since they have not been instituted by the Church and are not made by the authority of the Church.

2. Ecclesiastical blessings, which are very many, are divided:

a. By reason of effect, into constitutive blessings (Weihesegen), by which things or persons, their state being changed, become truly sacred; and invocative blessings (Bittsegen), by which, without a change of the state of things or persons, some special good is implored. To the former belong first tonsure, minor orders, consecration of virgins, consecration of a chalice or church, the blessing of an Agnus Dei or of holy water, etc.; to the latter belong simple blessings conferred on persons or things, such as the blessing of the sick, of a new house, of vineyards, of medicine, etc.

Constitutive blessings are of two kinds: alpha. some, by which blessed or consecrated persons or things are only deputed to divine worship and become sacred, some of which are ordered to confecting other sacramentals, as chrism, sacred oil; beta. others, by which blessed things become permanent sacramentals, namely when things are blessed for this end, that from their application or pious use some good may redound to man or some evil may be driven away from him, as holy water, an Agnus Dei, etc.

b. By reason of form, into real and verbal blessings, or into consecrations and simple blessings: in the former an anointing is employed, as in the consecration of a chalice; the latter are completed by words and signs alone, as the blessing of a ciborium or of holy water.

107. A sacramental etymologically is that which pertains to a sacrament; whence the ceremonies accompanying the essential rite of the sacraments are often called sacramentals by the ancient theologians. Yet in present-day use, under this name come ecclesiastical rites which have a peculiar likeness with the sacraments, and are, as it were, lesser sacraments.¹ They have both difference from and analogy with the sacraments: they are practical signs which in some measure depute to divine worship, and they have an effect, but one inferior to sacramental grace. For they are things or actions which the Church is accustomed to use, in a certain imitation of the sacraments, in order to obtain effects, especially spiritual ones, from her own impetration (can. 1144). They can be defined: sensible and sacred rites instituted by the Church for signifying and producing certain effects, both spiritual and temporal. They are called:

¹ The word sacramentalia is already used by Peter Lombard, in IV, d. 6, H.

1. sensible rites: for they are things, such as holy water, an Agnus Dei, the paschal candle, or actions such as blessings of persons or things, the sign of the cross, the prayer Confiteor;

2. instituted by the Church, which nevertheless received from Christ Himself the power of instituting them; whence if certain ones existed independently of the Church, nevertheless they have from the Church that they are sacramentals, namely, stably instituted;

Hence can. 1145: "Only the Apostolic See can constitute new sacramentals, or authentically interpret those received, abolish or change any of them";

3. for signifying and producing certain effects, both especially spiritual and temporal: namely, effects to be obtained from her own, i.e., the Church's, impetration.

Hence they are distinguished a) from mere ceremonies of the sacraments, such as the white garment in Baptism or sacred vestments, which are ordered solely to the adornment of worship, and to reconciling reverence to the sacraments and to signifying their efficacy; b) from the sacraments, both by reason of origin, and by reason of the effect, which is not justification itself and habitual grace or its increase, and by reason of the mode of operating, because they are not efficient causes ex opere operato, but as moral causes they have influence ex opere operantis Ecclesiae and by force of her impetration.

108. Benedictions for the most part constitute sacramentals, or are even sacramentals. - Benedictions are distinguished:

1. Constitutive, by which a thing or person becomes sacred, i.e., is deputed or consecrated to divine worship: thus the blessing of a church, oratory, bell, vessels, vestments; the consecration of a church, altar, chalice; the blessing of an abbot or virgin; the deputation of a cleric to divine ministry through tonsure. They are the efficient cause of a sacred thing, and per se they are not properly sacramentals; yet per accidens they can be such if by the blessing itself or by the use of the blessed thing they obtain for us goods that are to come to us as by a moral cause, as, for example, a blessed rosary or scapular.

2. Invocative, by which some particular benefit is obtained for a thing or person from the goodness of God. They are sacramentals, as moral causes obtaining an effect: thus the blessing of a woman, of an infant, of the sick, of nuptials, of a field, of a house, of a table, of foods, of animals.

3. Constitutive and at the same time invocative, by which things are blessed for this end, that from their application or use some good may permanently redound to man or some evil may be averted: thus blessed breads or ashes, blessed palms, medals, an Agnus Dei, lustral water, etc.

4. To these last are referred exorcisms for repelling the harmful action of the devil upon persons or things: in these, invocative formulas are mingled, and at the same time the devil is commanded and a necessity is established for him to desist from harmful action.

Hence sacramentals are reduced to three species: a) to the blessings of the Church, b) to the use of blessed things, and c) to exorcisms.

Formerly other divisions were customarily handed down, but they were neither scientific nor sufficiently founded.

109. The efficacy of sacramentals is sufficiently understood from what has thus far been set forth. Namely, they obtain four effects:

1. the conferral of actual grace for carrying out special offices, for salutary works, or for the fervor of charity;

2. the remission of venial sin, or also of temporal punishment, insofar as they excite a movement of contrition, or contain at least implicitly a retraction of sin, or satisfaction;

3. the restraint and repulsion of the devil;

4. the bestowal of a temporal good, for example, health, or prosperity of fields, insofar as it can be useful for salvation.

They are obtained ex opere operantis Ecclesiae, not from the dispositions of the one ministering or of the one receiving, although in a greater or lesser degree according to the dispositions of the one receiving, upon which they depend as upon a condition; but they do not depend upon the dispositions of the one ministering, for example, of a most holy man, although from these another effect ex opere operantis ministri can be added.

Nevertheless they are not obtained immediately, nor infallibly, because the conditions required so that prayer may be infallibly efficacious can be lacking, and an obstacle can be present on the part of the thing asked or on the part of man; but when the required conditions are given, the impetrations of the Church are infallibly heard.

110. Dispositions of canon law. - A. Concerning the minister it is established:

can. 1146: "The legitimate minister of sacramentals is a cleric to whom power for this has been conferred and who has not been prohibited by competent ecclesiastical authority from exercising that power"; as it is prohibited to the excommunicated and personally interdicted, even if they are required after sentence, except in danger of death (can. 2261 and 2275).

can. 1147: "§ 1. No one who lacks the episcopal character can validly perform consecrations, unless one to whom this is permitted either by law or by apostolic indult."

§ 2. "But any presbyter can impart blessings, except those which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to the Bishop or to others." Reserved to the Pontiff are the pallium or Agnus Dei; to the pastor, the nuptial blessing and the blessing of homes on Holy Saturday; to the bishop, the solemn blessing of a church or bell.

§ 3. "A reserved blessing which is given by a presbyter without necessary license is illicit, but valid, unless in the reservation the Apostolic See has expressed otherwise."

§ 4. "Deacons and lectors can give validly and licitly only those blessings which are expressly permitted to them by law."

B. Concerning the rite to be observed:

can. 1148: "§ 1. In confecting or administering sacramentals, the rites approved by the Church are to be observed accurately.

§ 2. Consecrations and blessings, whether constitutive or invocative, are invalid if the formula prescribed by the Church has not been used."

C. Concerning the subject:

can. 1149: "Blessings, to be imparted first of all to Catholics, can also be given to catechumens; indeed, unless a prohibition of the Church stands in the way, even to non-Catholics, for obtaining the light of faith or, together with it, health of body." Nevertheless, the excommunicated and personally interdicted after sentence are prohibited from receiving them (can. 2260 and 2275), as are those who have dared to enter a mixed marriage without the dispensation of the Church (can. 2375).

can. 1152: "Exorcisms can be performed by legitimate ministers not only upon the faithful and catechumens, but also upon non-Catholics or the excommunicated."

Bertha, an unmarried young woman, gives birth to an illegitimate child. Some months after its birth she brings it to the parish church to have it baptized. After its Baptism she requests the parish priest to church her. But he, already sorely troubled by the scandal the girl has brought on the parish, indignantly refuses to church her. In fact, he tells her the Church refuses to bless a woman after an illegitimate birth, that the churching of women is intended solely for decent legitimate mothers, and that to church her would be to transgress the command of Our Lord, about throwing pearls before swine. Some days afterwards, however, he began to think that perhaps he had been too severe, that perhaps he ought to have churched the unfortunate woman, that scolding her now could do no good, since the evil was done, and a bitter price already paid, and the unhappy girl was not likely to repeat her experience. He now asks whether he ought to have churched the woman, since she desired to be churched; or was it lawful for him to have refused her? Had she a strict right to the blessing, or was it within his discretion whether he would church her or not, or would it have been unlawful to church her?

ANSWER. The Roman Ritual has nothing to say regarding the churching of women after an illegitimate birth. There are three decrees of the Congregation of Rites concerning the churching of women after a legitimate birth, in Gardellini's collection. In 1631, the Congregation of Rites answered: “as to the blessing of women after childbirth, this is a parochial duty and pertains to the parish priest himself.” Again, when it was urged, in the same year, that the churching of women was not de praecepto, but only ad bene esse, and therefore might be performed by any priest, the Congregation of Rites answered that the churching of women belonged to the rights of the parish priest, exclusively. The same answer was given again in 1703. i

Since the Roman Ritual says nothing about the churching of women who have given birth to illegitimate offspring, and since nothing can be found in the decrees of the Roman Congregations concerning the same, we will consider the origin and nature of the ceremony of blessing women after childbirth. The rite has its origin in the prescription of the Old Law, concerning the purification of women after childbirth.

In the book of Leviticus, ch. 12, we read: "Neither shall she (a woman after childbirth) enter into the sanctuary until the days of her purification be fulfilled.... And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle, for sin, and shall deliver them to the priest; who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her."

"It is evident from the words of the law," says O'Kane (Rubrics, ch. x.) "that it could not apply to the Blessed Virgin in whom there were none of the effects of ordinary childbirth, since not only in conceiving, but in giving birth to the divine Infant, she still remained a pure and perfect virgin. Yet we know from St. Luke that she did not avail herself of the exemption, but humbly complied with the requirements of the law. A desire of imitating the humility of the Blessed Virgin, induced the custom among Christian mothers of abstaining from entering the church for some time after childbirth. They then asked the blessing of the priest at the church door, and made their first visit one of thanksgiving to God for their safe delivery."

The Jewish rite was intended only for legitimate wives and mothers, united in lawful wedlock. From which we infer that it was the intention of the Church, from the beginning, to confer this rite only on lawfully married women, after legitimate childbirth. Moreover, if we consider where this blessing occurs in the Roman Ritual, namely, immediately after the Sacrament of Marriage, as if pertaining to the same matter, and not among the other blessings of the Ritual, we seem to gather that it was intended by the Church only for women who have given birth to legitimate children in lawful wedlock.

Wherefore Catalanus, in his Commentary on the Roman Ritual, de bened. mulier. n. 17, says:

“It remains that, at the end of this commentary concerning women to be purified after childbirth, we note also this: the blessing after childbirth is granted only to a woman who has given birth from marriage, and not to one who has given birth from fornication, especially from adultery, or from intercourse otherwise condemned. Thus the doctors commonly teach plainly, and it is also read as enacted in synods and Rituals.”

Baruffaldi, commenting on the Roman Ritual, is of the same opinion (ad Rit. Rom. comm. de bened. mulier. tit. 43, n. 18).

De Herdt also, in his work on the Liturgy, arrives at the same conclusion. He says: "Only those women who bring forth children in lawful wedlock, have a right to this blessing; so much so that women who beget children in adultery or fornication should not be permitted to receive this special blessing, but rather should be made to do public penance."

“Only women who have given birth from legitimate marriage have a right to this blessing; so that there cannot be admitted to it those women who have notoriously borne offspring from adultery or fornication; public penance should rather be imposed upon them.” (De Herdt, S. Liturg, juxta Rit. Rom. bened. mulier. n. 11.)

This question was proposed to the Congregation of the Council, on the 18th June, 1859. The Congregation returned the following answer:

“Women who have given birth from legitimate marriage alone have a right to the blessing after childbirth.”

As is evident from the text, the sacred Congregation speaks only of the right—jus—of legitimately married women, to this blessing. The Congregation says nothing as to the permissibility of giving the blessing to unmarried women, after an illegitimate childbirth. It is quite clear that an unmarried woman has no strict right or just claim to be churched, after giving birth to an illegitimate child. But the question is not one of right; the question is one of the lawfulness of churching women after an illegitimate birth, not whether the priest committed a sin or acted unjustly in refusing to church Bertha, but whether he would have committed a sin or transgressed the law of the Church, if he had churched her.

Although the Roman Ritual may have taken occasion to speak of the churching of women from the Sacrament of Matrimony, still it remains true that the Ritual makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate childbirth, but simply describes the ceremony of blessing a woman after childbirth. Indeed it may even be urged that a woman has more need of this blessing after an illegitimate birth, than has a woman after a legitimate birth. For the nature and purpose of the ceremony is to purify the woman after confinement, that she may be clean again to enter the sanctuary of the Lord. And certainly a woman who has brought forth a child unlawfully, has more need of being purified before entering the church, than the woman who has borne a legitimate child. And if the blessing were to be omitted in the case of a notoriously illegitimate childbirth on account of the scandal it would occasion, still exception should be made for the poor woman who has brought forth her child in secret, and who was led into sin by deception or human frailty. In some countries, as in Belgium, for instance, in the case of a notorious illegitimate birth, the mother may not be churched except by the archpriest or dean, in order to enable the archpriest or the dean to discover, if possible, the identity of the father of the child, in order to institute legal proceedings against him. In some dioceses in Ireland, women who have given birth to illegitimate children are prohibited from being churched; in other dioceses they are restricted. In the diocese of Cashel and Emly there is this statute, dating from 1782:

“No woman who has given birth outside marriage is to be purified before a month has elapsed; if she has given birth again and in the same manner, she is to be purified only after two months have elapsed; one giving birth outside marriage a third time is never to be purified.” (O'Kane, Rubrics, p. 214.)

To conclude. Women who give birth to illegitimate children have no strict right to be churched, according to the decree of the sacred Congregation of the Council, June 18, 1859.

Further than this there is no general law of the Church concerning the churching of women, except that it belongs to the rights of the parish priest. If, therefore, there exist no diocesan statute, prohibiting the churching of women after an illegitimate childbirth, the parish priest is at liberty to do whatever he judges best in any particular case.

In the case before us we are inclined to think that the pastor was too harsh with Bertha. The poor woman had evidently suffered a great deal already, and the blessing might have helped her to regain her self-respect. There is danger that she may go wrong altogether, now that she feels herself so dishonored and she has need of great kindness and forbearance to help her rehabilitate herself in the esteem of the community. She would seem to be worthy of praise, rather than of contumely for desiring to receive the blessing post partum, and in the majority of such unfortunate cases kindliness will produce better results than severity.

A priest, while celebrating Mass, is made the target for an assassin’s bullet. The priest, although hit by the bullet, remains miraculously without injury beyond slight excoriation of the skin, while the assassin fires another bullet into his own brain and falls dead on the spot. The assassin and suicide was later identified and serious doubts were entertained as to his sanity. The question is, must the celebration of Holy Mass be suspended? Is the Church to. be considered profaned and in need of re-consecration?

Of the various causes of a Pollutio ecclesiae we need only consider here, 1. Sanguinis humani effusio, and 2. Homicidium. Marc (II, 1629): A copious outpouring is required, not of a few drops but of a notable amount of blood; and a wound inflicted in the church suffices, even if perhaps the blood is shed outside the church. As regards the priest, only his shirt and undershirt were stained with small blood spots, for this reason therefore no pollutio ecclesiae here took place. The ordinarily inevitable effect of the bullet was averted in a wonderful manner. 2. In reference to the homicidium-suicidium the action must be lethal, gravely sinful, and have had its completion in the Church (LEHMKUHL, II, No. 222). As madmen and lunatics are not allowed at liberty but are as a rule watched and confined, the perpetrator must be supposed of sound mind, and his deed as grievously sinful, till the contrary is proved. Therefore it is proper to suspend the Celebratio Missarum, and to have the church reconsecrated, although, objectively considered, it would not have been necessary if the perpetrator’s insanity had been established at the moment, instead of some time afterward. Under the circumstances it would have been unlawful to celebrate Mass without previous reconciliatio.

P. Joseph M. Thuille, O.S.B.

There seems to exist some diversity of opinion as to the way the holy water should be blessed on Holy Saturday, for the use of the faithful. For instance, one priest uses the blessing in the Roman ritual: Ordo ad factendam aquam benedictam, the same that he uses on ordinary Sundays throughout the year. Another blesses the water in the baptismal font, and then, before pouring into it the holy oils, he takes some of it and adds to it a quantity of water that has not been blessed. Once, having forgotten to take out some of the water before pouring in the oils, he took out some after he had poured in the holy oils. Another, at the same time that he blesses the water in the baptismal font, blesses other water for the use of the people, which is put into a separate vessel and placed near the baptismal font. Are all these ways good and proper, or how ought the water to be blessed on Easter Saturday?

Answer.—The water that the Church blesses in a more solemn manner on Holy Saturday, and which is popularly called Easter-water, is intended by the Church to be used for various purposes. It is intended, first of all, to be used as baptismal water, after the holy oils have been mixed with it. This is the principal purpose for which the Church blesses it, as may be gathered from the text of the Missal. When the blessing is finished, the oil of holy chrism and the oil of catechumens are added to it and it is used then exclusively for the administration of baptism throughout the year. But, according to the rubrics, this water thus blessed in a solemn manner on Holy Saturday is used for other purposes besides the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, but always before the holy oils are added to it.

1. It is prescribed by the rubrics, that during the blessing of the font on Holy Saturday, the assisting priests must take of the water thus blessed and sprinkle the faithful with it. “Then, by the assisting priests, some of the blessed water itself is sprinkled upon the people” (cf. rubrics, Roman Missal, bened. fontis in Sabb. sancto).

2. In the meantime, as soon as the water in the baptismal font has been blessed, one of the ministers or altar boys takes some of the water out of the font before the holy oils have been poured into it, and pours it into another vessel, which holy water is to be used in blessing the houses of the faithful and other places, which the rubrics prescribe shall be conducted on Holy Saturday, either by the parish priest himself or by another priest (Roman Ritual, de benedictionibus). “And meanwhile one of the ministers of the Church takes some of the same water in a vessel for sprinkling in houses and other places” (Roman Missal, rubrics for Holy Saturday). Some of this water must be poured into the holy water fonts of the church and some of it reserved for the use of the clergy and laity, who are to have access to it to take it for use in their homes on other days besides Holy Saturday (Memoriale rituum, tit. vi).

3. The Roman Missal also prescribes that this holy water, thus blessed with more solemn rite on Holy Saturday, shall be used for the “asperges” before the solemn Mass on Easter Sunday and on Pentecost Sunday. On Easter Sunday and on Pentecost Sunday, therefore, the celebrant of the solemn Mass does not bless the water with which he sprinkles the people before the Mass, as he does on ordinary Sundays throughout the year, but he takes of the Easter water, blessed on Easter Saturday, and with this he sprinkles the faithful, chanting the “Vidi aquam.”

From the foregoing it will readily appear that if the water blessed with solemn rite on Holy Saturday is to be used for these various purposes, no small quantity of it will be required; in fact, more will be needed than can be held in the ordinary baptismal font. It is only natural, therefore, that a diversity of opinion should arise as to the best and most proper way of blessing a sufficient quantity of Easter water to answer these different purposes that the Church has in view when she blesses it. However, one way is not as good as another, and for that reason we will say a word about the different methods proposed in the question.

One priest, as mentioned above, blesses the baptismal font, but at the same time he blesses, with the ordinary form: ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam, which is used on ordinary Sundays, a sufficient quantity of water in a separate vessel, to be given out to the faithful for use in their homes. Now, the Roman ritual says expressly that the water to be used on Holy Saturday in blessing the houses of the faithful must be taken from the baptismal font before the holy oils are added; and the Memoriale rituum says the same thing about the Easter water to be distributed to the faithful on Holy Saturday and used in the holy water fonts of the church. All the holy water used for these purposes must be taken from the baptismal font after it has been blessed with the solemn rites of Holy Saturday, but before the holy chrism and oil of catechumens have been added to it.

It is true that the Congregation of Rites (August 31, 1872) permits that on Holy Saturday the water may be blessed privately in the sacristy, using the ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam, and the water may be thus blessed at any hour during Holy Saturday, but not during the offices of the Church, if the priest who blesses the water is conducting the offices of the Church. But this permission seems to apply only to churches without baptismal fonts and to public oratories. Another priest takes some of the holy water from the baptismal font after the solemn blessing on Holy Saturday, but before he adds the holy oils, and to this water he adds water that has not been blessed, in order to have a sufficient quantity for the fonts of the church and for the people. There is nothing wrong in this procedure. One must be careful, however, never to add at one time, “unico actu,” of water that is not blessed a larger quantity than there is holy water to which it is added. The ritual prescribes this, de materia baptismi. The reason why the whole mass of water loses its blessing, if at any single time a larger quantity of unblessed water is added than there is blessed or holy water to which the addition is made, is the explicit will of the Church. The Church wishes that the whole mass lose its blessing, if at any one time more water that has not been blessed is added than there is holy water to which the addition is made. But it is permitted to add again and again unblessed water to the holy water, the same as to the baptismal water, provided, always, the quantity of water added never exceeds the quantity of baptismal water, or holy water,

‘at any single addition. It is never lawful to use the baptismal water, that is, the holy water in the baptismal font after the infusion of the holy oils, for any other purpose than that of baptizing. The missal and the ritual both state expressly that the water from the baptismal font wherewith the people are to be sprinkled and their houses blessed, etc., must be taken out before the holy oils are poured into it. To use the baptismal water after the infusion of the holy oils for such a purpose is certainly an abuse which cannot be justified. The holy oils are added to the water precisely because it is to be used thereafter for the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The catechism of the Council of Trent says that the Church, guided by apostolic tradition, has uniformly observed the practise of adding holy chrism to the water to be used in baptizing, the more fully to express its efficacy (de Bapt. chrism).

The last method of blessing the Easter water on Holy Saturday, mentioned above, namely, having a quantity of water in a separate vessel near the baptismal font, which the priest blesses at the same time that he blesses the font, is scarcely to be commended. The reason why it cannot be commended is because the solemn blessing of the Easter water is conducted with many ceremonies, as the division of the water in the form of the cross, breathing upon the water, dipping of the Easter candle into the water, etc., all of which ceremonies are restricted to the water in the baptismal font and may not be repeated, even if they could conveniently be repeated, over another vessel of water placed near by.

For these reasons we conclude that if the baptismal font does not hold water enough for the various purposes for which Easter water may be used, then the only thing to be done is to take out of the font as much holy water as can be spared, before the holy oils have been added to it, and to this water add a smaller quantity of unblessed water, which immediately partakes of the Easter blessing.

The question about reconsecration of an altare portatile is frequently brought up. It has often been laid before the S. Cong. Rituum and apparently contradictory answers have been given. This is due probably to the fact that the question was accompanied by special circumstances, which, while influencing the answer of the Congregation, were not mentioned in the text of the decision. De Herdt’s Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis, says about it (Tom. 1, p. 243, § 177): If the sepulcher is intact and the sacred relics are preserved, but the episcopal seal impressed in Spanish wax over the sepulcher has been erased, then according to the decree of May 23, 1846, the portable altar needs a new consecration because the identity and authenticity of the relics are not established; but according to the decree of March 11, 1837, celebration may take place on such an altar provided the consecrated stone or portable altar is intact; and according to the decree of September 23, 1848, a portable altar whose seal is broken, or on which the seal placed over the relics enclosed in the sepulcher does not exist, does not lose its consecration unless the sepulcher or its cover has been broken, or that cover has been removed. To understand these decrees, which seem contradictory, it must be considered that the episcopal seal is not something essential to the consecration of a portable altar, as is also clear from the pontifical, in which no mention is made, in the consecration of a portable altar, of an episcopal seal to be placed upon the sepulcher; thus the seal must be regarded only as a sign or testimony of the authenticity of the relics and of the consecration of the altar that has been performed. Therefore a portable altar whose seal impressed in Spanish wax over the sepulcher does not exist or has been erased does not lose its consecration unless the sepulcher or its cover has been broken, that is, the small stone which closes the repository of the relics, or even if this cover alone has been removed; nor does it need a new consecration provided it is certainly established from continuous use or otherwise that the altar was duly consecrated. But if the episcopal seal has been erased and it is not certainly established from continuous use or otherwise that the altar was duly consecrated—as when the altar has fallen out of use and has been kept by laypeople, etc.—it needs a new consecration, even if the sacred relics are found preserved, according to the cited decree of May 23, 1846, because the identity and authenticity of the relics are not established and, consequently, neither is the consecration of the altar.

The decision of May 23, 1846, above referred to, is quite similar to the one of February 28, 1880, as above reprinted. But even in this case, the Congregation does not maintain the essential necessity of the episcopal seal, for in the same inquiry: dubium II utrum sepulchro apponi possit et debeat sigillum Episcopale? it answers: apponi posse: i. e., therefore, if the stone is really consecrated, the seal may or may not be added afterwards; in each case it is allowed to use the altar.

The noteworthy point of the decision of February 28, 1880, lies in the words: nisi constet (Altaria) rite fuisse consecrata. This proof requires only a certitudo moralis, namely, that the altar-stone had always been considered consecrated, has always been in use, and that there is no visible sign of an opening of the locking-stone (operculum). Compare with this the wording of the above cited decision of March 11, 1837. Doubt II. Are altars to be interdicted if the sepulcher exists without a seal? Doubt III. Is that at least to be carried out when the sepulcher is visible but no trace of a seal placed upon it remains?—Answer. Provided the consecrated stone or portable altar is intact, celebration may take place upon it.

Let us consider the matter in praxi. The locking of the altarstones takes place at the consecration, and the little stone cover is firmly cemented. Then these consecrated stones are placed in reserve, and they are only sealed when the bishop causes them to be distributed. The seal is simply placed upon the stone by someone in the episcopal chancery, to show which bishop has performed the consecration. It is well known that sealing wax falls easily off the hard stone. An awkward pressure, the carelessness of a sexton while decorating the altar, suffices to knock off the brittle seal, especially when not placed in an appropriate depression, but on the surface of the stone.

Such decisions of the S. Congregatio cause considerable anxiety to pastors, and if the seal on the portable altar is broken or entirely gone, they think the stone must be immediately dispatched to the bishop for reconsecration, when in fact it has been in constant use for a long time, and has been examined in many visitations. Hence the rule is to examine carefully the locking-stone and its cementing, and if everything there is found solid and in place, there is no need to be anxious and troubled about presence or absence of the seal.

F. v. Oer.