« הקודםהמשך »
considered to be necessary when unhappily the sacred building had been polluted by bloodshed, or the commission of some impurity or profanation, or, by the burial of an excommunicated person ; or again, when a great portion of the church might happen to have been destroyed by fire or other accident. Durand says, and with more than his usual judgment; reconciliatio ad exemplum et terrorem, ut videlicet, videntes ecclesiam, quæ in nullo peccavit, propter peccatum alterius lavari et purificari, existiment quantum propter suorum delictorum expiationem sit laborandum.” 29
Reconsecration, in these cases, never was permitted ; and this rule was based upon the mystical resemblance which consecration was supposed to have to Holy Baptism : as it is plainly stated in the Decretum, Dist. 68. Can. 3. under the authority of a pseudo-Nicene canon : “ Quia sicut infans a qualicunque sacerdote in nomine Patris, etc. semel baptizatus, non debet iterum baptizari, ita nec locus Deo dicatus iterum consecrandus est.” This canon is quoted, after Gratian, by almost every writer on this subject, wherefore I have introduced it; and although not genuine, as attributed to so high a source, yet the principle of it was universally acknowledged from a very remote antiquity. For S. Gregory in one of his epistles places together cases of doubtful baptism, confirmation, and consecration of a church; deciding that each is to be performed,
28 These were the chief reasons, as given in the Pupilla Oculi :
1. and each admitted of a variety of modifications, which the student may find fully dis
cussed in the various canonists: he should especially consult Hostiensis, in Summa. Lib. 3. Rubr. xl.
29 Rationale. lib. 1. cap. vj. 44. 30 Lib. 12. Epist. xxxj.
“ quoniam non monstratur iteratum quod non certis indiciis ostenditur rite peractum.
And long before his time, in the year 398, the 6th canon of the 5th council of Carthage, after speaking of doubtful baptism, continues : “Similiter et de ecclesiis, quoties super earum consecratione hæsitatur, agendum est, id est, ut sine ulla trepidatione consecrentur.”31
I quote from Matthew Paris, (ad an. 1173) the account of the suspension of the celebration of Divine Service in the cathedral of Canterbury, after the murder of archbishop Becket. “ Post mortem beati Thomæ martyris fere anno integro, ecclesia Cantuariensis a divinis cessans obsequiis, continuis perstitit in lamentis, subversum est ecclesiæ pavimentum, sonus est campanarum suspensus, nudati sunt parietes ornamentis, et sic quasi in cinere et cilicio exequias in tristitia et mærore persolvit. Sed tandem ad matris suæ Dorobernensis ecclesiæ vocationem, in festo sancti Thomæ apostoli, suffraganei convenerunt episcopi, ut ecclesiam, longa suspensione consternatam, juxta mandatum domini papæ, in statum pristinum reformarent. Bartholomæus igitur Exoniensis episcopus, ad petitionem conventus, missam celebraturus solennem, et sermonem ad populum habiturus, sic exorsus est : “Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo, consolationes tuæ lætificant animam meam.'”
Upon the question how far a church and its churchyard were mutually influenced in regard of a desecration, I quote Van Espen. “ Polluta ecclesia, cæmeterium si ei fuerit contiguum, censebitur quoque pollu
31 Mansi. Concil. tom. 3. p. 969. It must, however, be added,
that in some copies of this council, this final clause is omitted.
tum ; secus si remotum fuerit ab eadem. At e converso polluto cæmeterio non censetur propterea polluta ecclesia, tametsi contigua : et, si duo sint coemeteria quæ pariete medio sibi junguntur, uno polluto, aliud pollutum censeri non debeat.” 52
There were some difficulties in deciding whether, if the altar was destroyed or removed, a reconsecration of the church would be required. The later practice, (as now observed, I believe, by the church of Rome) was against it. This appears to have been the received opinion in the time of the author of the Pupilla: who adopts the rule,“ propter altaris fractionem aut destructionem vel mensæ amotionem, non reconsecratur ecclesia, sed solum altare.” 33 But S. Anselm thought otherwise, and the practice of the church of England, we must conclude, in his day was also contrary. He is replying to a question upon the point, put to him by an abbot: “In hoc omnes concordant quod violato principali, tota ecclesia cum altari iterum consecranda est: nec ecclesia consecranda est sine consecratione altaris, aut principalis, `aut alicujus alterius in eadem ecclesia.” 34
32 Jus. eccles. Pars. ii. 2. tit. cited the passage, as illustrative 1. (tom. 1. p. 632.) His opinion of the then practice of the Engis of course based on the decisions lish church. S. Anselm not only of the canon law. The same rule however gives his decision, but is laid down in the Pupilla. loc. the reason of it: he continues in cit. T.
the same epistle:
" Altare non fit 33 loc. cit. F.
propter ecclesiam, sed ecclesia
propter altare: et ideo violato 34 Epist. Lib. 3. clix. Opera. principali altari, jam non videtur p. 423. Van Espen says that the esse ecclesia quia non est illud, archbishop was deceived in his propter quod ecclesia construitur judgment, owing to his reliance et consecratur. Quapropter cum upon a false decretal. I have illud fit novum, recte videtur cum
The archbishop further says: “Si aliqua pars ecclesiæ destructa reficitur, aut nova sit altari immoto, aqua tantum ab episcopo benedicta aspergendam dicunt.” And upon this point, I shall also quote the Pupilla. “ In tribus casibus debet ecclesia dudum consecrata iterum consecrari. Primus casus est quando dubitatur an fuerit consecrata, an non : et hoc quia non apparet aliqua scriptura aut instrumentum de dotatione ipsius ecclesiæ : in libro vel columna vel tabula marmorea, vel hujusmodi: nec ad hoc apparet aliquis testis qui deponere possit de visu vel etiam de auditu. Secundum est si ecclesia exusta fuit ita quod parietes sint combusti et disrupti, vel notabiliter etiam decrustati seu devastati, in toto vel in majori parte. Secus si totum tectum exustum fuerit. Tertius est si ecclesia funditus sit dirupta et deinde ex toto reparata : sive ex eisdem lapidibus sive ex aliis. Si vero non simul sed successive omnes parietes ruerent, vel dirimerentur, et etiam non simul sed successive et particulatim reparati sive renovati essent: non esset de novo consecranda ecclesia. Quia eadem ecclesia intelligitur ante reparationem et post : sed tunc debet reconciliari per aspersionem aquæ exorcisatæ.Item si ecclesiæ consecratæ quid addatur ad longitudinem vel ad latitudinem non ideo reconsecrabitur: quia sacrum trahit ad se non sacrum. Sed sufficit si aqua exorcisata aspergatur.
eo consecrari, per quod recipit ut charist. Thier's. Dissert. de Alsit ecclesia."
tar. cap. 2. The separate consecration of 35 Pars. ix. сар.
1. F. altars was of late introduction ; Bishop Gibson cites several for many centuries they were held examples of reconciliation of to be made sufficiently sacred by churches from the archiepiscopal the contact of the Blessed Eu- registers in the 17th century: I
It was certainly allowed, according to the use of some churches, that a priest might perform this office of reconciliation : but I think it probable that in the later centuries, at least, the English church observed the more general rule, which restricted it to the bishop of the diocese, or to another bishop with his license. The office itself, as the reader will observe, supposes the
presence of the bishop, equally as in the solemnity of a consecration: nor is it likely that the express de. cision of Gregory IX., in the 13th century, would have been disregarded : “ Aqua per episcopum benedicta ecclesiam reconciliari posse per alium episcopum non negamus; per sacerdotes simplices hoc fieri de cætero prohibemus :-quia licet episcopus committere valeat, quæ jurisdictionis existunt, quæ ordinis tamen episcopalis sunt, non potest inferioris gradus clericis de
quote the following which he postulant." Codex juris Ecc.