LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.
In the last number of the Record we laid down some rules for the convenience and guidance of the clergy in determining what mass is to be said on the occasion of marriage. We did not, however, point out the cases in which the nuptial benediction cannot be given, and when the mass pro sponso et sponsa cannot be said. The Roman Ritual has the following words:—"Caveat etiam parochus ne quando conjuges in primis nuptiis benedictionem acceperint, eos in secundis benedicat, sive mulier sive etiam vir ad secundas transeat. Sed ubi ea viget consuetudo ut si mulier nemini unquam nupserit, etiamsi vir aliam uxorem habuerit, nuptiae benedicantur, ea servanda est. Sed viduae nuptias non benedicat, etiamsi ejus vir nunquam uxorem duxerit". It is clear from these words that the nuptial benediction is not to be given, nor is the mass pro sponso et sponsa, to be said, in case a widow is to be married.
This will appear still more evident from two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites bearing on this subject:—
No. 4150.—Quaer. 4º "Si mulier esset vidua debetne omitti missa pro sponso et sponsa et omittendae sunt benedictiones infra eam descriptae post orationem Dominicam et Ite missa est?"
Ad. 4.—"Si mulier est vidua non solum debet omitti benedictio nuptiarum, sed etiam, missa propria pro sponso et sponsa. Die 3 Martii, 1761".
And again on the 31st of August, 1839, the following questions were answered:—
1. Quando nuptiae celebrantur tempore Adventus vel Quadragesimae debetne fieri commemoratio missae pro sponso et sponsa per Collectam Secretam, et Post communionem?
2. Licetne recitare supra sponsos preces seu orationes in missali positas post orationem Dominicam et Ite missa est?
3. Quando praedictae orationes non sunt recitatae in missa nuptiarum, debentne recitari extra missam elapso tempore prohibito?
Quae singula dubia sedulo de more perpendentes Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi patres sacris tuendis Ritibus praepositi in ordinario Coetu ad Quirinale subsignata die coadunati, auditaque fideli relatione ab infrascripto secretario facta respondendum censuerunt: serventur Rubricae Missalis ac generalia memorata Decreta quibus edicitur ut quoniam temporibus ab Ecclesia vetitis, locum haberi nequit solemnis benedictio nuptiarum, ita pariter inhibetur commemoratio pro sponso et sponsa in Missa occurrente neque orationes resumendae extra missam tempore prohibito jam elapso.
Atque ita rescripserunt, declararunt ac servandum omnino mandarunt. Die 31 Augusti, 1839.
We shall now proceed to answer other questions which were some time since sent to us by a much respected and zealous clergyman in connexion with the administration of marriage.
1. In what part of the church are the spouses to take their places? are they to stand or kneel during the ceremony?
2. Is the surname to be repeated in the ceremony?
3. Is the ring to be put from finger to finger or on the ring finger at once, as laid down in Roman Ritual?
4. How much of the Ritus Pontificalis of marriage ought a priest to adopt? for instance can he use a cope?
5. Is a lighted candle, and how many, to be used at the marriage ceremony, or in blessing holy water, etc.?
In answer to the first question, we beg to say that the Roman Ritual simply says: "Matrimonium in Ecclesia maxima celebrari decet". It was quite unnecessary to say more, inasmuch as the Ritual lays down that the spouses are to assist at mass and to approach Holy Communion. When these particulars are observed, the spouses should, of course, occupy a place near the altar, and even in case there should be no mass, it appears to us quite proper that they should contract marriage at the altar, while we cannot point out the precise place, as the Rubrics of the Ritual do not enter into further details. With regard to the kneeling, the Ritual says nothing: we think, however, that the practice of allowing them to stand while expressing their mutual consent, and kneeling down at the words Ego conjungo vos, etc., may safely be followed. This practice is indicated in some Rituals: "Ac primo sponsum interreget stantem ad dextram mulieris", and in the Roman Pontifical, "Muliere ad sinistram viri stante". The Roman Ritual does not mention these details.
It is not at all necessary to repeat the surname in the ceremony. Baruffaldi, in his "Commentaria ad Rituale Romanum", has the following words: "Post nomen non utique est necessarium addere cognomen gentilitium quia per verba illa hic praesentem satis indicatur quinam sit illa de quo agitur. Nihilominus ad abundantiam nonnulli solent addere quoque cognomen prosapiae et nomina parentum illorum qui contrahunt ad evitandum omnem errorem circa personam". Baruffaldi, de Matrimonio, tit. xlii. The Roman Ritual certainly appears to state that the ring is to be placed on the ring finger at once, and so does the Pontifical; however, it is to be remembered that other Rituals do not contradict this, but they would appear rather to explain the manner of observing what is prescribed in the Roman Ritual by moving it from finger to finger, and reciting the words at the same time as pointed out in the Ritual. Our respected correspondent, when proposing these questions for the very laudable purpose of securing uniformity of practice in so important a matter, must recollect the words of the Roman Ritual: "Caeterum si quae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus et caeremoniis in celebrando matrimonii sacramento utantur, eas sancta Tridentina synodus optat retineri". On which words Baruffaldi, commenting, says: "Cum Ecclesia Catholica delere introductas et per longa saecula approbatas caeremonias, impossibile iudicaverit, illas quodammodo retineri laudavit, optavitque dummodo sint vere laudabiles et merae consuetudines, non autem ritus sacramentales sacramentum deformantes". Hence, we should not be surprised if in different countries and even in different districts a diversity of practice exist in regard to details, "quae substantiam sacramenti non laedunt nec pietatem offendunt". At the same time, however, it is but right that we should observe the rubrics of the Ritual, as, the more accurate we are in doing so, the greater will be the uniformity of practice, which is most desirable.
The principles which we have laid down will enable us to answer question 4. We should not consider the pastor deserving of censure for using a cope on a very solemn occasion, though undoubtedly there is no mention made of it in the Ritual, whereas it is prescribed in the Pontifical for a Bishop; and, as a direct answer, we should be disposed to state that a priest may adopt as much of the Ritus Pontificalis as is consistent with the due observance of the Ritual. The priest ought to be guided by the Ritual, while he leaves to the bishop the observance of the Ritus Pontificalis as laid down in the Roman Pontifical.
We now proceed to answer the fifth and last question. The Rubrics require lighted candles in the blessing of the ashes, palms, and candles; but in the blessings referred to in the proposed question, the use of candles is not prescribed, though we think it would be very becoming to have lighted candles at a marriage even when there is no mass.
Nothing, however, is better calculated to edify and to impress the faithful with a sense of the dignity and character of the great sacrament, as it is called by St. Paul, in Christ and in the Church, than the holy sacrifice of the Mass; and hence the Holy Catholic Church, anxious to invest it with all possible solemnity, exhorts the married couple to prepare for its reception by confession and communion, and has appointed a special mass for the purpose; and accordingly we find that here in Ireland, even in the times of persecution, the nuptial benediction and mass were prescribed by Dr. Matthews, Archbishop of Dublin, and his suffragans, in a provincial synod at Kilkenny, in the year 1614. "Si quando contigerit, parochum aliquos matrimonialiter conjungere, non habitâ tunc opportunitate impertiendi illis nuptialem benedictionem, quae infra missarum solemnia dari solet, moneat verbis gravibus contrahentes, ne ante hujusmodi a se ipso, et non alio sacerdote, acceptam benedictionem, in eadem domo cohabitent, et multo minús, matrimonium consummare praesumant. Similiter sponsos de futuro moneat, ut a nimia familiarite caveant, et ne se ullatenus carnaliter cognoscant, donec matrimonium de praesenti contraxerint, et benedictionem nuptialem (prout dictum est) obtinuerint"—(Vide Dr. Moran's History of the Archbishops of Dublin, vol. i. p. 453, which contains all the statutes of that synod). With the same view we thought it well to publish some of the decrees having reference to the nuptial mass, by which it is easily seen how the dignity of this sacrament has been upheld by the Church, while the system introduced by governments in other countries would have the effect of degrading it to the level of a mere civil contract, and depriving it of the blessing and sanction of heaven. If we shall have succeeded in an humble way in showing the dignity of the marriage contract by the wise rules and discipline established by the Catholic Church, we will have performed a work agreeable, we are sure, to the readers of the Record, and attained at least one of the objects aimed at by its conductors.