Excerpts from
The Bull Beatus Andreas
of Pope Benecdict XIV
of 22 February 1755
The Bull Beatus Andreas
of Pope Benecdict XIV
of 22 February 1755
The following is a translation by R. Belser from the German of a pamphlet edited and published by Father Gottfried Melzer, Post f.80, A-4540 Bad Hall who translated this Bull from Latin into German and wrote the accompanying comments.
Comments within square [ and ] brackets are those of the translator, R. B.
This translation may be copied providing the source of the original German publication is given, and credit is given to the translator, and well as the URL of this Website.
-- R.B.
An Important Preliminary Remark
Cardinal Stickler in Rome presented the original Latin text of the Bull at that time to Professor Maximilian Baumgartner of Salzburg with the finding that the beatification of the child martyr Andreas of Rinn had taken place properly.
Cardinal Stickler was for a long time Prefect of the Vatican Library and of the Vatican Archives. The complete original text of the Bull (photocopy from the Bulls of Benedict XIV, Volume III, p. 213, etc.) can be ordered from the publisher of this work.
Benedict XIV was definitely an expert in questions of beatification and canonization. In the Bull Beatus Andreas, he often refers to the work De Canonisatione Sanctorum [Concerning the Canonization of Saints] which he composed. No one can raise the objection in respect to this pious Pope, who is numbered among the most learned successors of St. Peter, that he did not perform the beatification of the child Andreas in the proper manner.
Cardinal Stickler in Rome presented the original Latin text of the Bull at that time to Professor Maximilian Baumgartner of Salzburg with the finding that the beatification of the child martyr Andreas of Rinn had taken place properly.
Cardinal Stickler was for a long time Prefect of the Vatican Library and of the Vatican Archives. The complete original text of the Bull (photocopy from the Bulls of Benedict XIV, Volume III, p. 213, etc.) can be ordered from the publisher of this work.
Benedict XIV was definitely an expert in questions of beatification and canonization. In the Bull Beatus Andreas, he often refers to the work De Canonisatione Sanctorum [Concerning the Canonization of Saints] which he composed. No one can raise the objection in respect to this pious Pope, who is numbered among the most learned successors of St. Peter, that he did not perform the beatification of the child Andreas in the proper manner.
Three points which must be considered
1) The martyr-child Andreas of Rinn is continually called beatus (blessed) by the Pope in his Bull. This is already the case in the first two words of the Bull. When, therefore, the Pope designates this child as "blessed" and when tradition venerates this child as [the] "Holy Child," how, then, can a bishop (the former Bishop of Innsbruck, Dr. Reinhold Stecher, is meant) take upon himself the right of contesting the two titles of honor, "blessed" and "martyr" for this blessed martyr of the Cathilic Church?
2) Benedict XIV has the public cult, existing since old times, of the martyr-child Andreas of Rinn, on the 15th of December 1752 by means of approval of an individual Mass [in his name] and of his own Office. This corresponds to a so-called "beatificatio aequipollens," that is, of an actual [de facto] beatification through the confirmation of the cult. This beatification has the same effect as a formal beatification, and is therefore in relation to a [formal beatification], "aequipollent,' i.e., "equally valid." Bishop Stecher is presenting the erroneaous notion that only a formal beatification has validity.
3) Benedict XIV recommends to the faithful the veneration of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn, in that on the 15th of December 1752 he granted a plenary indulgence to those who, after receiving the Sacrament on the 12th of July of any year at all, visit the church in Judenstein at Rinn, where the relics of this Blessed [child] rest. This indulgence can also be gained on the Sunday following [the 12 of July] according to the usual conditions.
The above-named indulgence is still valid today, since it has never been taken out of effect by any later Pope. Thus the recommendation of the Church, of visiting the relics of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn and the Blessed [child] there in his church, still exists even today.
1) The martyr-child Andreas of Rinn is continually called beatus (blessed) by the Pope in his Bull. This is already the case in the first two words of the Bull. When, therefore, the Pope designates this child as "blessed" and when tradition venerates this child as [the] "Holy Child," how, then, can a bishop (the former Bishop of Innsbruck, Dr. Reinhold Stecher, is meant) take upon himself the right of contesting the two titles of honor, "blessed" and "martyr" for this blessed martyr of the Cathilic Church?
2) Benedict XIV has the public cult, existing since old times, of the martyr-child Andreas of Rinn, on the 15th of December 1752 by means of approval of an individual Mass [in his name] and of his own Office. This corresponds to a so-called "beatificatio aequipollens," that is, of an actual [de facto] beatification through the confirmation of the cult. This beatification has the same effect as a formal beatification, and is therefore in relation to a [formal beatification], "aequipollent,' i.e., "equally valid." Bishop Stecher is presenting the erroneaous notion that only a formal beatification has validity.
3) Benedict XIV recommends to the faithful the veneration of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn, in that on the 15th of December 1752 he granted a plenary indulgence to those who, after receiving the Sacrament on the 12th of July of any year at all, visit the church in Judenstein at Rinn, where the relics of this Blessed [child] rest. This indulgence can also be gained on the Sunday following [the 12 of July] according to the usual conditions.
The above-named indulgence is still valid today, since it has never been taken out of effect by any later Pope. Thus the recommendation of the Church, of visiting the relics of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn and the Blessed [child] there in his church, still exists even today.
from the Bull Beatus Andreas of Benedict XIV
of 22 February 1755
of 22 February 1755
Preliminary Remarks of the editor of the Latin text of the Bull
It is examined whether it be beneficial to canonize children who have been killed out of hatred toward Christ. To this end, many things are thoroughly set out concerning the martyrdom of these children and the public veneration which has been given them in the Church, and especially concerning the martyrdom and the veneration of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn, whose initiated canonization trial has provided the occasion for the letter to be composed.
To our beloved son Benedict Veterani, advocate of the Holy Consistory and Promotor Fidei [promoter of the Faith].
It is examined whether it be beneficial to canonize children who have been killed out of hatred toward Christ. To this end, many things are thoroughly set out concerning the martyrdom of these children and the public veneration which has been given them in the Church, and especially concerning the martyrdom and the veneration of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn, whose initiated canonization trial has provided the occasion for the letter to be composed.
To our beloved son Benedict Veterani, advocate of the Holy Consistory and Promotor Fidei [promoter of the Faith].
from Benedict XIV
Beloved Son, Greeting and Apostolic Blessing!
S.1. Request of the monastery of Wilten for the granting of an
individual Mass [in his name] and his own Office, to the honor of the Blessed
Andreas of Rinn
The Blessed Andreas from the region of the village of Rinn in the Diocese of Brixen, was butchered in the cruellest fashion before the completion of the third year of [his] life in the year 1462 by Jews out of hatred toward the Christian Faith. His public veneration began a few years after his martyrdom, when his bones were raised in the year 1475, and namely, to a place on the wall, elevated from the earth, of the church of the aforenamed town, which is consecrated to God, to the honor of the holy Apostle Andreas. But since the pious inclination of the people, together with the news of the effects of miracles has grown all the more here, and in particular, the relics of the child have been treated with a constant and uninterrupted public reverence with the knowledge and approval of the bishops of the area, all of this in recent years has so moved Our venerable Brother, the Bishop of Brixen, (and) Our beloved son, the Abbot of the monastery of Wilten, that they have petitioned, for an approval [as subjects] of the Holy See, for an individual Mass [in his name] and his own Office with corresponding lessons, to be read to the honor of the Blessed [child] on the day of his martyrdom, the 12th of July, by the clergy of the world and by those in orders of both sexes in the city and in the entire Diocese of Brixen.
But on 27 September of the year 1751, We responded to this request, that a trial concerning the repute of the martyrdom and of the miraculous acts as well as concerning the veneration, since time immemorial, should first be carried out by the Bishop of the place, about which We have prayed for a legally valid confirmation, before [We grant] the permission for his own Mass and his own Office.
The Blessed Andreas from the region of the village of Rinn in the Diocese of Brixen, was butchered in the cruellest fashion before the completion of the third year of [his] life in the year 1462 by Jews out of hatred toward the Christian Faith. His public veneration began a few years after his martyrdom, when his bones were raised in the year 1475, and namely, to a place on the wall, elevated from the earth, of the church of the aforenamed town, which is consecrated to God, to the honor of the holy Apostle Andreas. But since the pious inclination of the people, together with the news of the effects of miracles has grown all the more here, and in particular, the relics of the child have been treated with a constant and uninterrupted public reverence with the knowledge and approval of the bishops of the area, all of this in recent years has so moved Our venerable Brother, the Bishop of Brixen, (and) Our beloved son, the Abbot of the monastery of Wilten, that they have petitioned, for an approval [as subjects] of the Holy See, for an individual Mass [in his name] and his own Office with corresponding lessons, to be read to the honor of the Blessed [child] on the day of his martyrdom, the 12th of July, by the clergy of the world and by those in orders of both sexes in the city and in the entire Diocese of Brixen.
But on 27 September of the year 1751, We responded to this request, that a trial concerning the repute of the martyrdom and of the miraculous acts as well as concerning the veneration, since time immemorial, should first be carried out by the Bishop of the place, about which We have prayed for a legally valid confirmation, before [We grant] the permission for his own Mass and his own Office.
S.2. Desire of the petitioners for the granting of his own Mass and
Office without protracted and costly proceedings
This letter of response from Us has found no great favor with you. It has been pointed out to Us, that for the performance of all of that which is prescribed in it, lengthy time, much work, and high expenses would be required, since indeed now in Brixen two trials were being conducted under the auspices of the local Bishop. And We Ourselves , of course, [it was also pointed out] had dealt with several examples in Our work De Caninisatione, Book 4, Part 2, chapter 5, from which is clearly emerges that now and then individual Masses and individual Offices to the honor of a blessed [person] had been granted only upon the basis of that which important authors had written about him and what had been published concerning his public veneration, without any sort of proceedings carried out by the local Bishop concerning the repute of the virtues, the martyrdom, the miraculous acts, or production of [a history of] veneration since time immemorial, having had to procede it. That [would be] on this account, because a trial of this sort would then absolutely have to be foreseen, if anyone desired to pursue this matter further, beyond the granting of his own Mass and his own Office, and to advance to the formal canonization, but not if one, after the permission for his own Mass and his own Office had been attained, did not have anything in mind concerning a formal canonization, but wished to be satisfied with what had been achieved.
We have decided on this, to abandon the path prescribed by Us and to follow another [path], which We Ourselves have shown and have confirmed with many examples as above (in Our book) in Chapter 5.
This letter of response from Us has found no great favor with you. It has been pointed out to Us, that for the performance of all of that which is prescribed in it, lengthy time, much work, and high expenses would be required, since indeed now in Brixen two trials were being conducted under the auspices of the local Bishop. And We Ourselves , of course, [it was also pointed out] had dealt with several examples in Our work De Caninisatione, Book 4, Part 2, chapter 5, from which is clearly emerges that now and then individual Masses and individual Offices to the honor of a blessed [person] had been granted only upon the basis of that which important authors had written about him and what had been published concerning his public veneration, without any sort of proceedings carried out by the local Bishop concerning the repute of the virtues, the martyrdom, the miraculous acts, or production of [a history of] veneration since time immemorial, having had to procede it. That [would be] on this account, because a trial of this sort would then absolutely have to be foreseen, if anyone desired to pursue this matter further, beyond the granting of his own Mass and his own Office, and to advance to the formal canonization, but not if one, after the permission for his own Mass and his own Office had been attained, did not have anything in mind concerning a formal canonization, but wished to be satisfied with what had been achieved.
We have decided on this, to abandon the path prescribed by Us and to follow another [path], which We Ourselves have shown and have confirmed with many examples as above (in Our book) in Chapter 5.
S.3. Benedict XIV names the authors who have written about the Blessed
Andreas of Rinn
The name of the Blessed Andreas is not unknown to Us, and his martyrdom as well, because We of course have read what the well-known Bollandists have written concerning him in Volume 3, under the date 12 July, and because We also Ourselves have brought him into consideration in Our above-named work De Canonisatione, Book 3, Chapter 15, Nr. 6. But before We confirmed the petition brought [to Us], is has been necessary for Us to go through the handwritten history concerning this blood-witness, which has been composed by Hyppolyt Guarinoni in German and translated into Latin by Father Norbert, the Abbot of Wilten, and also to examine the acts of the martyr and the documents concerning the public veneration and the wealth of knowledge, which have been collected by much effort and rendered into print in the year 1745 by Father Hadrian Kembter, as well as the letter of defense concerning the martyrdom of the Blessed Simon of Trent, which was printed in Trent in the year 1747, and where, in chapter 5, the martyrdom and the veneration of the Blessed Andreas is treated in detail. Although this work was published by its scholarly author without his name because of modesty, it is nonetheless recognizable as a work of Father Benedict Cavallesio. The well-known Flaminius Cornelius, member of the Senate of Venice, testifies to this in detail, in his work Die Verehrung des hl. Martyrer kindes Simon von Trent [The Veneration of the Holy Martyr Simon of Trent], page 4, where he does not neglect to give the praise due to the above-named deserving man of the order [i.e., religious order].
The name of the Blessed Andreas is not unknown to Us, and his martyrdom as well, because We of course have read what the well-known Bollandists have written concerning him in Volume 3, under the date 12 July, and because We also Ourselves have brought him into consideration in Our above-named work De Canonisatione, Book 3, Chapter 15, Nr. 6. But before We confirmed the petition brought [to Us], is has been necessary for Us to go through the handwritten history concerning this blood-witness, which has been composed by Hyppolyt Guarinoni in German and translated into Latin by Father Norbert, the Abbot of Wilten, and also to examine the acts of the martyr and the documents concerning the public veneration and the wealth of knowledge, which have been collected by much effort and rendered into print in the year 1745 by Father Hadrian Kembter, as well as the letter of defense concerning the martyrdom of the Blessed Simon of Trent, which was printed in Trent in the year 1747, and where, in chapter 5, the martyrdom and the veneration of the Blessed Andreas is treated in detail. Although this work was published by its scholarly author without his name because of modesty, it is nonetheless recognizable as a work of Father Benedict Cavallesio. The well-known Flaminius Cornelius, member of the Senate of Venice, testifies to this in detail, in his work Die Verehrung des hl. Martyrer kindes Simon von Trent [The Veneration of the Holy Martyr Simon of Trent], page 4, where he does not neglect to give the praise due to the above-named deserving man of the order [i.e., religious order].
S.4. The granted Papal permission for his own Mass and his own Office for
the Blessed [child], as well as a plenary indulgence on the annual day of his martyrdom
Moreover, We learned that a trial concerning the cult of the same Blessed Andreas has been carried out previously under the auspices of the local Bishop, and We thereupon requested a certified copy. And thus at least extra-judicial proof for the duration of this public veneration has existed and the relevant records have been delivered to Us. We have now weighed everything exactly and then, by means of the Congregation of Rites and upon request of [Our] venerable brother, the Bishop of Brixen, as well as of [Our] beloved son, the General Superior of the Premonstration order and of the Abbot of the monastery of Wilten, on 15 December 1752, we have granted a Mass in his name and an Office in his name with special lessons, for reading by the world clergy and by members of the orders of both sexes, according to the rite of a duplex-feast in the city and in the whole bishopric of Brixen. We have also not neglected to Ourselves exercise care in the examination and selection of the Mass texts and the corresponding lessons and to review everything with [Our] beloved son, Ludwig Valenti, formerly Promotor Fidei and presently Assessor in the Holy Office.
And besides, We have conformed to the requests of the aforenamed Bishop of Brixen and of the rest of those likewise mentioned, and on 15 January granted a plenary indulgence to all those who, after Confession and reception of Holy Communion on the 12th of July of any year, visit the church in Rinn (the daughter church at Judenstein is meant), in which the relics of the Blessed Andreas rest.
Moreover, We learned that a trial concerning the cult of the same Blessed Andreas has been carried out previously under the auspices of the local Bishop, and We thereupon requested a certified copy. And thus at least extra-judicial proof for the duration of this public veneration has existed and the relevant records have been delivered to Us. We have now weighed everything exactly and then, by means of the Congregation of Rites and upon request of [Our] venerable brother, the Bishop of Brixen, as well as of [Our] beloved son, the General Superior of the Premonstration order and of the Abbot of the monastery of Wilten, on 15 December 1752, we have granted a Mass in his name and an Office in his name with special lessons, for reading by the world clergy and by members of the orders of both sexes, according to the rite of a duplex-feast in the city and in the whole bishopric of Brixen. We have also not neglected to Ourselves exercise care in the examination and selection of the Mass texts and the corresponding lessons and to review everything with [Our] beloved son, Ludwig Valenti, formerly Promotor Fidei and presently Assessor in the Holy Office.
And besides, We have conformed to the requests of the aforenamed Bishop of Brixen and of the rest of those likewise mentioned, and on 15 January granted a plenary indulgence to all those who, after Confession and reception of Holy Communion on the 12th of July of any year, visit the church in Rinn (the daughter church at Judenstein is meant), in which the relics of the Blessed Andreas rest.
S.5. The permission for the cult for the Blessed Andreas occurred in
conformity with the permission for the cult of the Blessed Simon of Trent
In all these criteria, We have held the example before our eyes of Our predecessor Sixtus V. In the year 1485 (it must be correctly read as 1475) the Blessed boy Simon of Trent was most horribly murdered before the completion of his third year of life by Jews, out of hatred toward those who believe in Christ. This inhuman crime produced so many and such grave consequences, and the Jews availed themselves of so may and such practiced artifaces in order to escape [their] deserved punishment and to divert the righteous anger of the Christian faithful from themselves, that Sixtus IV could not fail to intervene in this affair himself, in that he forbade that the public veneration which had been shown to the Blessed Simon continue to be rendered to him, until it was completely clear that he was butchered by Jews out of hatred against the believers in Christ. We have reported concerning the Papal brief of Sixtus IV in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 1, Chapter 14, Nr. 4.
Then, however, all became clear. Under consultation of the evidence, the act of murder together with its motivation was proven, and it is also certain that the murderers were Jews, which emerges from the documents of the proceedings, which today are still preserved in the secret archives in Engelsburg. As We have shown in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 3, Chapter 15, Nr. 6, Pope Sixtus IV by a Papal brief thereupon approved the Mass celebration and the Office in his [Simon's] name, to be read on the fixed day in the city and the entire bishopric of Trent, to the honor of the Blessed Simon, and (the Pope) moreover granted a plenary indulgence to all those who, having had the Sacrament of Confession and Communion, visit the church in which his relics are venerated on his day of the year.
The Papal brief of Sixtus V is contained on page 207 in the above-named letter of defense concerning the martyrdom of the Blessed Simon, which was printed in the year 1747 at Trent. The learned author does not neglect in this to refute everything which Wagenseil and Basnagi have raised as objections against the martyrdom of the innocent boy. Flaminius Cornelius, Lord of the Senate of Venice, in his work Die Verehrung des hl. Knaben Simon von Trent [The Veneration of the Holy boy Simon of Trent], which was printed in the year 1743 at Venice, does the same with equal power and scholarship.
Between that, however, which We have granted Ourselves for the veneration of the Blessed Andreas, and what Our predecessors have decreed concerning the veneration of the Blessed Simon, is the single distiction, of this, that namely, at the behest of Pope Gregory XIII, the name of the Blessed Simon has been accepted into the Roman Martyrology, to which We have referred already in Our work De Canonisatione Sanctorum, Book 1, Chapter 14, Nr. 4. But We have not wished to decree this in respect to the Blessed Andreas, in order not to damage later determinations (what is meant here are those of Urban VIII, who ruled approximately 50 years after Gregory XIII), which say that in the Roman Martyrology only the names of those who have been canonized should be entered, and that the names of those who were enrolled in the number of the Blessed are to be left out, be it that this enrollment occurred by means of a solemn beatification, or be it that it occurred by means of an actual (aequipollent) beatification. For this, see Our work De Canonisatione Sanctorum, Book 4, Chapter 18, Nr. 9, etc.
In all these criteria, We have held the example before our eyes of Our predecessor Sixtus V. In the year 1485 (it must be correctly read as 1475) the Blessed boy Simon of Trent was most horribly murdered before the completion of his third year of life by Jews, out of hatred toward those who believe in Christ. This inhuman crime produced so many and such grave consequences, and the Jews availed themselves of so may and such practiced artifaces in order to escape [their] deserved punishment and to divert the righteous anger of the Christian faithful from themselves, that Sixtus IV could not fail to intervene in this affair himself, in that he forbade that the public veneration which had been shown to the Blessed Simon continue to be rendered to him, until it was completely clear that he was butchered by Jews out of hatred against the believers in Christ. We have reported concerning the Papal brief of Sixtus IV in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 1, Chapter 14, Nr. 4.
Then, however, all became clear. Under consultation of the evidence, the act of murder together with its motivation was proven, and it is also certain that the murderers were Jews, which emerges from the documents of the proceedings, which today are still preserved in the secret archives in Engelsburg. As We have shown in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 3, Chapter 15, Nr. 6, Pope Sixtus IV by a Papal brief thereupon approved the Mass celebration and the Office in his [Simon's] name, to be read on the fixed day in the city and the entire bishopric of Trent, to the honor of the Blessed Simon, and (the Pope) moreover granted a plenary indulgence to all those who, having had the Sacrament of Confession and Communion, visit the church in which his relics are venerated on his day of the year.
The Papal brief of Sixtus V is contained on page 207 in the above-named letter of defense concerning the martyrdom of the Blessed Simon, which was printed in the year 1747 at Trent. The learned author does not neglect in this to refute everything which Wagenseil and Basnagi have raised as objections against the martyrdom of the innocent boy. Flaminius Cornelius, Lord of the Senate of Venice, in his work Die Verehrung des hl. Knaben Simon von Trent [The Veneration of the Holy boy Simon of Trent], which was printed in the year 1743 at Venice, does the same with equal power and scholarship.
Between that, however, which We have granted Ourselves for the veneration of the Blessed Andreas, and what Our predecessors have decreed concerning the veneration of the Blessed Simon, is the single distiction, of this, that namely, at the behest of Pope Gregory XIII, the name of the Blessed Simon has been accepted into the Roman Martyrology, to which We have referred already in Our work De Canonisatione Sanctorum, Book 1, Chapter 14, Nr. 4. But We have not wished to decree this in respect to the Blessed Andreas, in order not to damage later determinations (what is meant here are those of Urban VIII, who ruled approximately 50 years after Gregory XIII), which say that in the Roman Martyrology only the names of those who have been canonized should be entered, and that the names of those who were enrolled in the number of the Blessed are to be left out, be it that this enrollment occurred by means of a solemn beatification, or be it that it occurred by means of an actual (aequipollent) beatification. For this, see Our work De Canonisatione Sanctorum, Book 4, Chapter 18, Nr. 9, etc.
S.6. The Subsequent Desire of the Wilten Monastery for the Canonization
of Blessed Andreas of Rinn
If the religious (the members of te choir of the Wilten convent) had been satisfied, as
they had assured [us], with receiving only the Office and the Mass in [Andreas'] name, and
if further, they had not shown an interest in pursuing the Causa itself up to a
formal canonization, We would not have had to undertake the dictation of this letter, and
We would have spared you the trouble of reading through the same and considering it. But
because they now have in mind the formal canonization and have succeeded in getting the
most influential Catholic princes (what is meant here, are the substantial members of the
House of Hapsburg) to fiercely insist upon it, it seems to Us necessary, after Our
reflecting upon it, to set forth Our judgement in this letter concerning the recent petition,
as is proper for everything and in accord with regulations.
S.7. Required investigations with respect to a planned canonization
of the Blessed Child Andreas of Rinn
Naturally, We have no complaint about those who have received from Us permission for an [individual] Mass [for Andreas] and Office in accordance with the reasons set forth above, if the same [people], although they (originally) had stated their intention of not proceeding further, are now changing their opinion. We gladly take upon Ourselves these new labors in consideration of the repeated exertions of the religious (of the monastery of Wilten). We are, moreover, convinced that: As often as these [religious] desire to hurry to a formal canonization, in accordance with the care which you are accustomed [in having] from Us, We will not neglect you but rather expand the commission which is being conducted in status and terminus [that is, in its authority and duration], as we have stated in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 2, Chapter 38, Nr. 13, and also strive for proof in accordance with [canon] law, insofar as it is shown that this case is not contained in the decretals of Urban VIII, with which, by the way, the postulatores would like to be in agreement, in that they will refer to Our authentic indult [a temporary privilege granted to a person by the Roman Catholic Church] of the Mass and the Office, as we also have remarked in the previously cited work, Book 2, Chapter 42, Nr. 3.
And We likewise apprise you of the fact that (We) are examining whether, in the newly begun apostolic trial [The process of canonization within the Roman Catholic Church has tradtionally included a trial in which proponents and opponents of canonization make their best arguments and examine all evidence concerning the life of the candidate; the opponents were represented by a canon lawyer often refererred to as "the Devil's advocate"; even in cases in which the candidate had no serious detractors, every genuine effort was made to scrupulous challenge the case of the proponents, in the interest of arriving at the truth], along with the martyrdom of the Blessed Andreas, the motives of the latter are also proven; further, after [it has been determined that] there is not sufficient [proof] for a solemn canonization, (We will examine) both which facts on the one side and which apparent facts on the other side exist for the granting of the [individual] Mass and the Office, as We ourselves have set forth in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 1, Chapter 32, Nr. 6-17, and Chapter 42, Nr. 9.
It is further to be evaluated from the standards of serious criticism, whether the historians who report about the martyrdom conform to the necessary conditions of furnishing proof for the solemn canonization in the Court. (We have) spoken concerning these (above named) conditions in detail in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 3, Chapter 7, and in the following chapter, because an all the greater lack of assiduity prevails with the historians when it is the case of the simple granting of the public rite, especially of the cult [The word "cult" in this context, and as understood in canon usage, has nothing to do with it current connotation of an esoteric, fanatic religious group; rather, it refers to the 'following' enjoyed by a particular saint, beatified person, or candidate for the same, along with the beliefs of concerning that candidate held by those followers] within a particular diocese, as when it is a matter of a legitimately prescribed cult, which has also has been spread throughout the entire Church, which We Ourselves have stated in (Our work) Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 10, Nr. 26.
And finally, still to be considered moreover, aside from the martyrdom and its motivation, is the appearance of signs and miracles, which have occurred after the permission for the public cult, which is likewise to be cited according to the Papal brief issued by Us for the granting of the office and of the Mass. But here, two signs or miracles do not suffice, rather four must be produced in accordance with the requirements. Since there is, in particular, with respect to the martyrdom of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn, and in respect to the motivation of the latter, no proof as support, that is to say eyewitnesses, nevertheless there is to some extent, as a helpful substitute for this, witnesses who had heard this being told. With respect to the kind of datum, two signs or miracles are therefore not sufficient, in agreement with the general determinations (iuxta generale decretum) [in connection with the general decretal] which We issued on the 23rd of April 1741 and which have been printed in Our work De Canonisatione in Book 3, Chapter 3, Nr. 25, which now entirely conform exactly to the requirement of the Congregation on Rites.
Naturally, We have no complaint about those who have received from Us permission for an [individual] Mass [for Andreas] and Office in accordance with the reasons set forth above, if the same [people], although they (originally) had stated their intention of not proceeding further, are now changing their opinion. We gladly take upon Ourselves these new labors in consideration of the repeated exertions of the religious (of the monastery of Wilten). We are, moreover, convinced that: As often as these [religious] desire to hurry to a formal canonization, in accordance with the care which you are accustomed [in having] from Us, We will not neglect you but rather expand the commission which is being conducted in status and terminus [that is, in its authority and duration], as we have stated in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 2, Chapter 38, Nr. 13, and also strive for proof in accordance with [canon] law, insofar as it is shown that this case is not contained in the decretals of Urban VIII, with which, by the way, the postulatores would like to be in agreement, in that they will refer to Our authentic indult [a temporary privilege granted to a person by the Roman Catholic Church] of the Mass and the Office, as we also have remarked in the previously cited work, Book 2, Chapter 42, Nr. 3.
And We likewise apprise you of the fact that (We) are examining whether, in the newly begun apostolic trial [The process of canonization within the Roman Catholic Church has tradtionally included a trial in which proponents and opponents of canonization make their best arguments and examine all evidence concerning the life of the candidate; the opponents were represented by a canon lawyer often refererred to as "the Devil's advocate"; even in cases in which the candidate had no serious detractors, every genuine effort was made to scrupulous challenge the case of the proponents, in the interest of arriving at the truth], along with the martyrdom of the Blessed Andreas, the motives of the latter are also proven; further, after [it has been determined that] there is not sufficient [proof] for a solemn canonization, (We will examine) both which facts on the one side and which apparent facts on the other side exist for the granting of the [individual] Mass and the Office, as We ourselves have set forth in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 1, Chapter 32, Nr. 6-17, and Chapter 42, Nr. 9.
It is further to be evaluated from the standards of serious criticism, whether the historians who report about the martyrdom conform to the necessary conditions of furnishing proof for the solemn canonization in the Court. (We have) spoken concerning these (above named) conditions in detail in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 3, Chapter 7, and in the following chapter, because an all the greater lack of assiduity prevails with the historians when it is the case of the simple granting of the public rite, especially of the cult [The word "cult" in this context, and as understood in canon usage, has nothing to do with it current connotation of an esoteric, fanatic religious group; rather, it refers to the 'following' enjoyed by a particular saint, beatified person, or candidate for the same, along with the beliefs of concerning that candidate held by those followers] within a particular diocese, as when it is a matter of a legitimately prescribed cult, which has also has been spread throughout the entire Church, which We Ourselves have stated in (Our work) Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 10, Nr. 26.
And finally, still to be considered moreover, aside from the martyrdom and its motivation, is the appearance of signs and miracles, which have occurred after the permission for the public cult, which is likewise to be cited according to the Papal brief issued by Us for the granting of the office and of the Mass. But here, two signs or miracles do not suffice, rather four must be produced in accordance with the requirements. Since there is, in particular, with respect to the martyrdom of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn, and in respect to the motivation of the latter, no proof as support, that is to say eyewitnesses, nevertheless there is to some extent, as a helpful substitute for this, witnesses who had heard this being told. With respect to the kind of datum, two signs or miracles are therefore not sufficient, in agreement with the general determinations (iuxta generale decretum) [in connection with the general decretal] which We issued on the 23rd of April 1741 and which have been printed in Our work De Canonisatione in Book 3, Chapter 3, Nr. 25, which now entirely conform exactly to the requirement of the Congregation on Rites.
S.13. Cases of martyrdom of children which have been recorded by the
authors
The annals of the Church and other Church memoirs agree with these: Under (the Emperor) Decius or Valerian there occurred the well-known martyrdom of St. Cyrill, who was in the first year of his life. His acts were reported by the Bollandists in Volume 7, for 29 May, and (likewise) in the Acta Martyrum [Acts of the Martyrs] by Ruinart, (and in particular) in the Amsterdam edition on page 246.
In the annals of Cardinal Baronius, two child brothers are mentioned in the year of Christ 311, whose bodies were buried in a church at Nicomedia, which was because of this called the Martyrium Infantium (Martyrdom of the Children).
And in the (same) work, page 57, etc., for the year of Christ 522 are recorded the acts of martyrdom of a certain woman and her son, who had not yet passed his 5th year of life.
From the Bollandists for the date 24 March, we are told -- aside from what has been mentioned concerning the blessed boy Simon of Trent -- that in the Diocese of Cologne, a boy Johannchen [i.e., little Johnny] is venerated, who was killed by the Hebrews out of hatred against the (Christian) faith.
Baillet reports for the same 24th of March, that in Paris a certain boy Richard (Riccardus) is venerated as a martyr.
And likewise, in England another boy with the name William (Villelmus) is honored. This boy was murdered by the Jews out of hatred against the (Christian) faith.
In the 18th volume of the work of Father Theophil Raynoud, and in particular in the work that is entitled De Martyrio per pestem [Concerning Martyrdom by means of destruction], in Part 2, Chapter 2, Nr. 7, one reads that in the time of King Ferdinand in Spain a three-year-old boy was killed by Jews out of hatred against Christ in the district of Guardia near Toledo, that veneration is shown him and that he is called the innocent child of Guardia for obvious reasons.
And the same is attested of two other two-year-old twin boys in Sardinia, who bore the names Cessilius and Camerinus.
And further, in the aforementioned apologetic [this derivative of the word "apology" is used in the alternate meaning of that word as "an exposition in support or defense of."] treatise concerning the martyrdom of the Blessed Simon of Trent, there is mentioned on page 242, a little three-year-old girl by the name of Ursula who was murdered in the cruellest manner by Jews out of hatred of Christ, approximeately in the year 1442 in Lienz, a small but old town in the County of Tyrol, located in the Pustertal [Puster Valley] toward Kärnten,. In the year 1609 an older monument at the church of this place was replaced by a new one. This (newer one) was chiselled after [the likeness of] the older one and one can read, incribed on the same, the story of that horrible atrocity.
And on page 264, etc., is mentioned a boy Laurentius, whom the Jews killed in 1485 when he was 5 years of age, out of hatred toward the faith, and this boy has been regarded and venerated as a martyr since his martyrdom and up to the present day in Marostica in the region of Vicenza and in areas not far from there.
The annals of the Church and other Church memoirs agree with these: Under (the Emperor) Decius or Valerian there occurred the well-known martyrdom of St. Cyrill, who was in the first year of his life. His acts were reported by the Bollandists in Volume 7, for 29 May, and (likewise) in the Acta Martyrum [Acts of the Martyrs] by Ruinart, (and in particular) in the Amsterdam edition on page 246.
In the annals of Cardinal Baronius, two child brothers are mentioned in the year of Christ 311, whose bodies were buried in a church at Nicomedia, which was because of this called the Martyrium Infantium (Martyrdom of the Children).
And in the (same) work, page 57, etc., for the year of Christ 522 are recorded the acts of martyrdom of a certain woman and her son, who had not yet passed his 5th year of life.
From the Bollandists for the date 24 March, we are told -- aside from what has been mentioned concerning the blessed boy Simon of Trent -- that in the Diocese of Cologne, a boy Johannchen [i.e., little Johnny] is venerated, who was killed by the Hebrews out of hatred against the (Christian) faith.
Baillet reports for the same 24th of March, that in Paris a certain boy Richard (Riccardus) is venerated as a martyr.
And likewise, in England another boy with the name William (Villelmus) is honored. This boy was murdered by the Jews out of hatred against the (Christian) faith.
In the 18th volume of the work of Father Theophil Raynoud, and in particular in the work that is entitled De Martyrio per pestem [Concerning Martyrdom by means of destruction], in Part 2, Chapter 2, Nr. 7, one reads that in the time of King Ferdinand in Spain a three-year-old boy was killed by Jews out of hatred against Christ in the district of Guardia near Toledo, that veneration is shown him and that he is called the innocent child of Guardia for obvious reasons.
And the same is attested of two other two-year-old twin boys in Sardinia, who bore the names Cessilius and Camerinus.
And further, in the aforementioned apologetic [this derivative of the word "apology" is used in the alternate meaning of that word as "an exposition in support or defense of."] treatise concerning the martyrdom of the Blessed Simon of Trent, there is mentioned on page 242, a little three-year-old girl by the name of Ursula who was murdered in the cruellest manner by Jews out of hatred of Christ, approximeately in the year 1442 in Lienz, a small but old town in the County of Tyrol, located in the Pustertal [Puster Valley] toward Kärnten,. In the year 1609 an older monument at the church of this place was replaced by a new one. This (newer one) was chiselled after [the likeness of] the older one and one can read, incribed on the same, the story of that horrible atrocity.
And on page 264, etc., is mentioned a boy Laurentius, whom the Jews killed in 1485 when he was 5 years of age, out of hatred toward the faith, and this boy has been regarded and venerated as a martyr since his martyrdom and up to the present day in Marostica in the region of Vicenza and in areas not far from there.
S.21. Martyr-children held to be blessed according to a formal or
equipollent beatification
The last classes are comprised of those children robbed of life due to hatred toward Jesus Christ, whose cult is practiced on the basis of a formal or equipollent beatification. This (beatification) can then finally be succeeded by canonization, as is (otherwise) usual, in the case that nothing stands against it.
It was further said above, that the Popes have always made their authority accepted at canonizations, even in cases of a canonization which originates with a cult introduced in one diocese, which then crosses into another diocese and finally is extended throughout the whole church.
But now We add that the prescription was introduced and firmly decided by Alexander III, in accordance with which it is a matter for the Roman Pontiff to grant or approve a cult at a certain place and in individual dioceses. The foundations and reasons for this constitution are to be found in Our (work), Book 1, chapter 10, Nr. 3, etc.; and it might be added that it is not only in the special manner a matter for the Pope, as it always was, to introduce by his prescriptions a cult into the whole Church, be it a cult of martyrs, or a cult of confessors, under which [prescriptions], as has often been said, canonization is to be understood. It is also (a matter for the Pope) to grant by means of (his) permission, that in some city or diocese, or in certain other places, a religious cult is demonstrated to some servant of God which is entirely clearly such a one [cult] through his martyrdom or through (his) confession. Therein consists the beatification.
But two blessed children are to be numbered among this latter class, who were killed out of hatred toward the faith: Simon of Trent, who was tortured in 1475, and Andreas of the village of Rinn, who suffered martyrdom in 1462, with whose case we are now dealing. For it can be said of both with certainty, that they have attained a beatification from the Holy See, if not formally, at least to be sure equipollently, insofar as everything which was necessary to consider concerning the martyrdom and its cause, and concerning the news of the signs and miracles, has been produced and thoroughly discussed (so that it) has arrived at the approval of an Office and Mass for the particular location.
And if, nevertheless, as we have further said above, at the behest of Pope Gregory XIII, the name of the Blessed Simon has been added to the Roman Martyrology, it can however not be inferred that because of this the latter has been canonized. It is held in particular as an extremely more certain and to some degree (universally) more accepted principle, that in the Martyrology the names of those are given and their celebrated acts are proclaimed, (for the reason) that the faithful (not only) are encouraged to their imitation, but also encouraged to their veneration, but always under the protection of the direction of the Church; and indeed in such a way, that the cult to which the faithful are supposed to be encouraged, insofar as it relates to one already canonized, be a prescribed and public one; but that it, insofar as it relates to those who have been beatified, is public, but has been allowed, according to the indult of the beatification, in a limited manner only to certain persons and for certain locations. But it should be allowed privately with respect to other (persons and places), which have not been included by the indult (of the beatification). We have expressly treated how the practice, tested and maturely weighed and composed in these words, is accustomed to being handled by the Holy See, in Our work, De Canonisatione, Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 19, Nr. 6.
The last classes are comprised of those children robbed of life due to hatred toward Jesus Christ, whose cult is practiced on the basis of a formal or equipollent beatification. This (beatification) can then finally be succeeded by canonization, as is (otherwise) usual, in the case that nothing stands against it.
It was further said above, that the Popes have always made their authority accepted at canonizations, even in cases of a canonization which originates with a cult introduced in one diocese, which then crosses into another diocese and finally is extended throughout the whole church.
But now We add that the prescription was introduced and firmly decided by Alexander III, in accordance with which it is a matter for the Roman Pontiff to grant or approve a cult at a certain place and in individual dioceses. The foundations and reasons for this constitution are to be found in Our (work), Book 1, chapter 10, Nr. 3, etc.; and it might be added that it is not only in the special manner a matter for the Pope, as it always was, to introduce by his prescriptions a cult into the whole Church, be it a cult of martyrs, or a cult of confessors, under which [prescriptions], as has often been said, canonization is to be understood. It is also (a matter for the Pope) to grant by means of (his) permission, that in some city or diocese, or in certain other places, a religious cult is demonstrated to some servant of God which is entirely clearly such a one [cult] through his martyrdom or through (his) confession. Therein consists the beatification.
But two blessed children are to be numbered among this latter class, who were killed out of hatred toward the faith: Simon of Trent, who was tortured in 1475, and Andreas of the village of Rinn, who suffered martyrdom in 1462, with whose case we are now dealing. For it can be said of both with certainty, that they have attained a beatification from the Holy See, if not formally, at least to be sure equipollently, insofar as everything which was necessary to consider concerning the martyrdom and its cause, and concerning the news of the signs and miracles, has been produced and thoroughly discussed (so that it) has arrived at the approval of an Office and Mass for the particular location.
And if, nevertheless, as we have further said above, at the behest of Pope Gregory XIII, the name of the Blessed Simon has been added to the Roman Martyrology, it can however not be inferred that because of this the latter has been canonized. It is held in particular as an extremely more certain and to some degree (universally) more accepted principle, that in the Martyrology the names of those are given and their celebrated acts are proclaimed, (for the reason) that the faithful (not only) are encouraged to their imitation, but also encouraged to their veneration, but always under the protection of the direction of the Church; and indeed in such a way, that the cult to which the faithful are supposed to be encouraged, insofar as it relates to one already canonized, be a prescribed and public one; but that it, insofar as it relates to those who have been beatified, is public, but has been allowed, according to the indult of the beatification, in a limited manner only to certain persons and for certain locations. But it should be allowed privately with respect to other (persons and places), which have not been included by the indult (of the beatification). We have expressly treated how the practice, tested and maturely weighed and composed in these words, is accustomed to being handled by the Holy See, in Our work, De Canonisatione, Book 4, Part 2, Chapter 19, Nr. 6.
S.22. A Trial regarding a Causa can be stopped for special
reasons
If, nonetheless, the Blessed Simon attained the honor of the Blessed long before the Blessed Andreas, there is no one who pursued his canonization. And as concerns the request for a canonization of the Blessed Andreas, which is now being urged, there is much to take into consideration after the (attained) beatification. The entire investigation revolves about whether this wish should be granted. For it is a not unusual situation, that the course (of a trial) concerning some Causa is stopped for just and grave reasons and (thus) the path to canonization is blocked, although a beatification has preceded it, as so many Causae make evident, in which Office and Mass have been granted after a formal or equipollent beatification, but where there is no one and furthermore will be no one, who aims at a solemn canonization.
If, nonetheless, the Blessed Simon attained the honor of the Blessed long before the Blessed Andreas, there is no one who pursued his canonization. And as concerns the request for a canonization of the Blessed Andreas, which is now being urged, there is much to take into consideration after the (attained) beatification. The entire investigation revolves about whether this wish should be granted. For it is a not unusual situation, that the course (of a trial) concerning some Causa is stopped for just and grave reasons and (thus) the path to canonization is blocked, although a beatification has preceded it, as so many Causae make evident, in which Office and Mass have been granted after a formal or equipollent beatification, but where there is no one and furthermore will be no one, who aims at a solemn canonization.
S.23. Church blood-witnesses are genuine martyrs, but not in will and
works, rather in works alone
And thus We now, for a small number (of such children martyrs) proceed to the reasons which are not limited to the Causa of the Blessed Andreas, but to some extent touch upon all Causae of the children whom the hatred against the Christian faith has snatched away, and at an age, to be sure, when they were not able to distinguish between good and evil, although these (also) are martyrs, but not in Will and Works, but in Works alone, to use the words of St. Bernhard. It could in particular appear proper to anyone, if one decided upon one distinct cult of the Blessed for the martyred children under the conditions given. But he will have doubts whether it be fitting to proceed further, so that the cult be extended throughout the whole Church according the manner of prescribed law, which is, of course, the main feature of canonization, at which [event] what is necessary for a transition from beatification to a canonization should not be respected in any way.
S.29. The Causa of the Blessed Andreas of Rinn is to be examined,
whether it can be approved for a canonization trialAnd thus We now, for a small number (of such children martyrs) proceed to the reasons which are not limited to the Causa of the Blessed Andreas, but to some extent touch upon all Causae of the children whom the hatred against the Christian faith has snatched away, and at an age, to be sure, when they were not able to distinguish between good and evil, although these (also) are martyrs, but not in Will and Works, but in Works alone, to use the words of St. Bernhard. It could in particular appear proper to anyone, if one decided upon one distinct cult of the Blessed for the martyred children under the conditions given. But he will have doubts whether it be fitting to proceed further, so that the cult be extended throughout the whole Church according the manner of prescribed law, which is, of course, the main feature of canonization, at which [event] what is necessary for a transition from beatification to a canonization should not be respected in any way.
Whatever we have said here can also be found in Our work De Canonisatione, Book 1, Chapter 14, and Book 3, Chapter 15, Nr. 2, etc. It still remains to (exactly) explore and to examine everything, as to whether it is a matter of allowing the Causa of the Blessed Andreas to proceed further, or whether it would be more expeditious that this [Causa] remain at the same status which it now possesses, which entirely corresponds to (the status) in which the Causa of the Blessed Simon exists.
And because it is not out of the question that others express similar desires, they will be (to a certain extent) parts of your effort and of the wise assessment of the rest, whom We shall apprise of what is to be taken into consideration when a case of this kind occurs, as indeed it appears common with respect to a child who has been killed in Holy Week by Jews out of contempt toward Christ. The murders of the Blessed Simon and Blessed Andreas in particular are such (cases), but so too are (the murders) of many which are listed by the authors.
It might perhaps appear to someone that it is proper, whenever there is admittance to the Causa of children killed in this manner, that these murders, which are well-known to the people, have been condemned by all and also punished by the authorities, must be loudly proclaimed in the world).
Moreover, it seems best, whenever there is a case of martyrs "not by Will and Works, but by Works alone," that a larger number of signs and miracles than is otherwise required, be established, in order to obtain a formal canonization.
We close this, Our letter, by imparting to you Our apostolic blessing, beloved son.
Given at Rome at Sancta Maria Major, on 22 February 1755, in the 15th year of Our Pontifficate.
No comments:
Post a Comment