Part 2 — THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF RITES ON THE SIGNS OF MARTYRDOM IN THE CATACOMBS.

DECREE.

Postquam saeculo XVI., laboribus praesertim et studiis Antonii Bosi iterum sacra suburbana patuere Coemeteria, quae a saeculo VIII. exeunte Summorum Pontificum cura penitus interclusa remanserant ne barbari Romanum solum devastantes ibi aliquam inferrent profanationem, in iis conquiri coeperunt Martyrum corpora quae adhuc ibidem permanebant in loculis abscondita. Tutissimum dignoscendi sacra haec pignora signum a majorum traditione receptum erant phialae vitreae vel figulinae cruore tinctae, aut crustas saltem sanguineas occludentes, quae vel intra vel extra loculos sepultorum affixae manebant. Attamen aliquibus visum fuit viris eruditis alias praeter sanguinem admittere notas, quibus ipsi Martyres distingui autumabant. Verum ut in re tanti momenti inoffenso procederetur pede, placuit Clementi IX. Summo Pontifici singularem deligere Congregationem, quae ex Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalibus, aliisque doctissimis viris constaret, eique hac super re gravissimum commisit examen. Haec Congregatio quae postea a Sacris Reliquiis et indulgentiis nomen habuit, argumentis omnibus perpensis, die 10 aprilis anni 1668 decretum hoc tulit: "Cum in Sacra Congregatione Indulgentiis, Sacrisque Reliquiis praeposita de notis disceptaretur, ex quibus verae Sanctorum Martyrum Reliquiae a falsis et dubiis dignosci possint; eadem Sacra Congregatio, re diligenter examinata, censuit, Palmam et Vas illorum sanguine tinctum pro signis certissimis habenda esse: aliorum vero signorum examen in aliud tempus rejecit". Decretum hujusmodi duorum fere saeculorum decursu fideliter servatum est, quamvis praeterito vertente saeculo nonnulli selecti scriptores de Phialae sanguineae signo diversimode dubitaverint; quibus praecipue gravissima Benedicti XIV. auctoritas obstitit, quum in Literis Apostolicis ad Capitulum Metropolitanae Ecclesiae Bononiensis de S. Proco Martyre ex Coemeterio Thrasonis cum vase sanguinis effosso edoceret: "Ipsi debetur cultus et titulus Sancti, quia procul dubio nulli unquam venit in mentem quantumvis acuto ingenio is fuerit, et cupidus quaerendi, ut aiunt, nodum in scirpo, nulli, inquam, venit in mentem dubitatio, quod Corpus in Catacumbis Romanis inventum cum vasculo sanguinis aut pleno, aut tincto, non sit Corpus alicujus qui mortem pro Christo sustinuerit". At nostris hisce diebus alii supervenere viri eruditione aeque pollentes, et in sacrae Archeologiae studiis valde periti, qui vel scriptis, vel etiam voluminibus editis adversus Phialam sanguineam utpote indubium Martyrii signum decertarunt. Sanctissimus autem Dominus Noster PIUS PAPA IX., de Decreti illius robore et auctoritate haud haesitans, quum videret tamen eruditorum difficultates in ephemeridibus tum catholicis, tum heterodoxis divulgari, ad praecavendum quodlibet inter fideles scandalum sapientissime censuit, ut hujusmodi difficultates in quadam peculiari Sacrorum Rituum Congregatione severo subjicerentur examini. Peculiaris vero Congregatio haec nonnullis ex ejusdem Sacrorum Rituum Congregationis Cardinalibus, Praelatis Officialibus, ac selectis ecclesiasticis viris pietate, doctrina, prudentia, rerumque usu eximie praeditis constituta prae oculis habens universam argumentorum seriem, nec non fidelem ejusdem Secretarii relationem, quum omnia accuratissima ponderaverit disquisitione die 27 Novembris vertentis anni duobus his propositis dubiis:

I. An Phialae vitreae, aut figulinae sanguine tinctae quae ad loculos sepultorum in Sacris Coemeteriis vel intus vel extra ipsos reperiuntur, censeri debeant Martyrii signum?

II. An ideo sit standum vel recedendum a Decreto Sacrae Congregationis Indulgentiarum, et Reliquiarum, diei 10 Aprilis 1668?

Respondit ad primum: "AFFIRMATIVE";

Respondit ad secundum: "PROVISUM IN PRIMO".

Ideoque declaravit confirmandum esse decretum anni 1668.

Facta autem de praemissis Sanctissimo Domino Nostro PIO PAPAE IX. a subscripto Secretario accurata omnium expositione, Sanctitas Sua sententiam Sacrae Congregationis ratam habuit et confirmavit, atque praesens decretum expediri praecepit.

Die 10 Decembris 1863.

C. Episcopus Portuen. et S. Rufinae CARD. PATRIZI, S. R. C. Praef. D. Bartolini S. R. C. Secretarius.

This Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites contains the decision of a most important and interesting question. The decision itself is prefaced by an historical summary by help of which even those who hear of the question for the first time, are placed in a position to understand without trouble its nature and bearing. It is unnecessary to say anything concerning the early phases of the controversy about the value of the phial of blood, as a sign of martyrdom. Nor, after the decision just delivered, is it necessary to dwell upon the difficulties that have been urged in our own day against the ancient practice. In face of the clear and explicit declaration of the Sacred Congregation, such difficulties lose in Catholic eyes all the value which once might have been claimed for them. Nevertheless, it will not be without advantage to make some observations on the objections which have furnished the matter for the rigorous examination alluded to in the Decree.

Three of these objections are deserving of special attention.

1. Many of the sepulchres marked by the presence of the phial of blood bear, likewise, the names of consuls who flourished after the reign of Constantine. Now, the reign of Constantine put an end to the persecutions and brought peace to the Church. How, then, can the phials of blood be a sign of martyrdom, when they appear upon graves opened to receive those who died when the period of martyrdom had passed?

This difficulty, so serious at first sight, becomes much less serious when we consider that we must except from the number of these inscriptions, all such as belong to the reign of Julian the Apostate, in whose days there was certainly no lack of martyrs. This deduction made, the number of inscriptions, hitherto found, marked with the names of consuls posterior to Constantine, and in connection with the phial of blood, amounts to the comparatively insignificant number of about thirty. To account for this number of martyrs after Constantine, it is not necessary, on the one hand, to suppose a general persecution; and on the other, we have ample testimony to the existence of partial persecutions and outbreaks against the Christians, more than sufficient to have caused the death of a much greater number. In the first place, some of the Christian emperors were Arians, and as such little careful to protect the Catholics against the fury of the Pagans or of the heretics. Saint Felix II., Eusebius the Priest, and many others received the crown of martyrdom from this cause. In the next place, the orthodox emperors generally did not reside at Rome, which they governed by prefects, who were for the most part Pagans. Besides, the Roman nobility long continued, not only Pagan, but violently attached to Pagan superstitions. Among the people, too, there were many Pagans whose rage at the decay of their own religion, was provoked still more by the sight of the progress made by Christianity.

The state of Rome during this period will best be understood by the two following facts. In the year 369, the Prefect of Rome having rebuilt the portico of the Dei Consenti under the Capitol, whilst Valentinian I. was Emperor, and Saint Damasus was Pope, was bold enough to place on its front an inscription still to be read: "Deorum Consentium Sacrosancta Simulachra". The famous Altar of Victory, in the Capitol, was kept in its place of honour as late as the reign of Theodosius, notwithstanding the efforts of the preceding emperors to remove it. Nor could even that great emperor effect its removal without exciting tumults on the part of the Pagan senators. In such a state of society, lasting more or less for a century and a half, is it hard to find a place for the martyrdom of many and many a Christian?

2. The second difficulty is as follows: Many of the graves marked by the phial of blood are also marked by the presence of that special form of the monogram of Christ which belongs to the period of Constantine; they cannot, therefore, be the graves of martyrs.

What has been already said in reply to the first difficulty applies equally to the second. But is it certain that the use of the monogram in question does not go farther back than the time of Constantine? There is good reason to believe that it is by no means certain. In many portions of the catacombs which, undoubtedly, were excavated before the fourth century, tablets have been found most distinctly marked with this form of monogram. Besides, the same form is sometimes found close by other forms which are beyond doubt of most remote antiquity, and this, too, in corridors which, for the most part, appear to have been excavated before the time of Constantine. Examples of this collocation are to be seen in the cemetery of Cyriaca, in that of Maximus, or Saint Felicitas, in the Via Salaria Nuova, in the cemetery of Saint Hypolytus, in the cemetery of Saint Agnes. It is the well-considered opinion of almost all antiquarians, that the use of the monogram alluded to in the difficulty was by no means infrequent at the close of the third and the commencement of the fourth century—that is to say, at the period of the persecution of Dioclesian.

3. The third difficulty denies the supposition that the slight red coating found on the side of the phials, has been deposited there from blood. Some have been bold enough to say that it is due to the Eucharistic species of wine which the vessels once contained, and which gradually dried up; others say that it has been caused by the decomposition of the glass, or that water trickling through the reddish earth has left behind it a coloured sediment upon the vessel's sides. But it results from careful chemical analysis, frequently repeated, that the red coating is due to the presence of the colouring matter of the blood, and not to any of the causes above recited. The opinion which ascribes it to the Eucharistic species is, above all others, singularly destitute of proof from history or monuments.

Since the publication of the Decree we have given above, an important discovery has been made in the Basilica Ambrosiana of Milan, which goes far to justify the accuracy of the decision of the Sacred Congregation. In the year 386 Saint Ambrose discovered at Milan the relics of the two illustrious Milanese martyrs, Saints Gervasius and Protasius. He caused them to be translated to the Basilica, and buried them beneath the altar, on the right or Gospel side. "This spot", said he, in his discourse on the occasion, "I had destined for myself, for it is meet that the bishop should repose where he was wont to offer the Divine Sacrifice. But to these sacred victims I give up the right portion". Saint Ambrose died in 397, and was buried on the left or Epistle side of the same altar, beneath which he had placed the bodies of the holy martyrs.

In the ninth century Anglebert II., Bishop of Milan, placed in one and the same urn the remains of the three saints, and built over them a new altar, which was so richly ornamented with gold and precious stones that it has ever since been styled the Pallio d'Oro. This altar has remained intact down to our days. On the evening of the 15th January, 1864, the authorities of the Basilica, in course of excavations directed by the provost and a special commission, made search for the primitive sepulchre in which Saint Ambrose had laid the two martyrs. They found it formed of slabs of rare marbles, and within it a little earth mixed with small fragments of bones, together with a fragment of an ampolla or glass phial. Of this ampolla, the illustrious Cavalier De Rossi, in his Bulletino di Archeologia Cristiana (anno ii., No. 3, p. 21), thus writes: "It now remains for me to speak of a fact lately established by chemical science—a fact of the greatest importance, and worthy of the attentive consideration of all students of Christian archæology. In Biraghi's first account (of the discoveries in the Basilica Ambrosiana) we read that the bottom of a glass ampolla was found in the sepulchre to the right, that is, in the sepulchre of the martyrs Gervasius and Protasius. The same gentleman has since written to me to say that a chemical analysis of the deposit found in the fragment of phial has resulted in the discovery of the presence of blood. Now, this is certainly the most notable instance we have of a phial containing blood being placed at the sepulchre of martyrs known as such to history, and what especially distinguishes this ampolla beyond every other are the solemn words of the great Doctor Saint Ambrose, which have especial reference to it. He had discovered the tomb of Saints Gervasius and Protasius, and describing his discovery in a letter to his sister Marcellina, he says that within the urn he found 'plurimum sanguinis'. In the same epistle he adds: 'Sanguine tumulus madet, apparent cruoris triumphales notae, inviolatae reliquiae loco suo et ordine repertae avulsum humeris caput' (Ep. xxii. ad Marcellin.). It was of the blood of the same martyrs that Gaudentius, of Brescia, uttered the well-known words: 'Tenemus sanguinem gypso collectum, qui testis est passionis' (Serm. in ded. SS. XL. Mart.). But neither Ambrose nor any one else had informed us that besides the blood copiously sprinkled in the sepulchre, and in which the chalk or cement was soaked, there was also some collected in a glass ampolla. The late discovery certifies to this fact, and shows that phials filled or stained with blood were placed in the sepulchres of martyrs, and that these phials were alluded to in the celebrated words of Ambrose and his contemporaries, who speak of blood found in tombs, and bearing witness to martyrdom. This important fact comes most opportunely to strengthen the principle followed by the Church; and lately confirmed by a new decree of the Congregation of Rites, namely, that the bloodstained ampolla was placed in the sepulchres of martyrs to the end that it might bear witness to their glorious death for the faith of Christ".