A reverend correspondent has taken occasion from our remarks in the
last number of the _Record_, to ask a question about the custom
prevalent in Ireland of reciting the _De profundis_ after mass. We
will quote his own words: “In reading the liturgical questions in your
last number of the _Record_, it occurred to me to inquire on what
authority is founded the practice of reciting the _De profundis_ after
mass, whether it can be omitted _ad libitum, secluso scandalo_, and
whether it should be said at the altar, or when the priest descends,
or when going into the sacristy”. The practice of reciting the _De
Profundis_ after each low mass, we believe, exists in all Ireland,
without any exception of diocese or district, and has existed for a
long period. It is the opinion of many well versed in Irish
ecclesiastical matters, that it was introduced and authorised by the
Holy See as a substitute for the numerous masses and suffrages for
which innumerable endowments were founded by the piety of the faithful
in former times, and which were taken away from the Catholic Church at
the time of the Reformation. It is more than probable that a rescript
from the Holy See authorised this practice, in order that the pious
intentions of the founders of such endowments might not altogether be
frustrated by the rapacity of the reformers. It is difficult to
understand how, under other circumstances, the practice could have
become so universal in Ireland. Indeed we have heard it remarked, that
possibly a rescript of an old date bearing on this subject might be
found; and if any of our readers could aid us in getting authentic
documents on the matter, we need scarcely say how anxious we would be
to insert them or any information connected with this subject in the
_Record_. While writing these lines we have been informed that in the
Irish College, Paris, there is a rescript authorising the recital of
the _De profundis_ after the community mass in the college.
Apart, however, from this consideration we may reply that the recital
of the _De profundis_ cannot be omitted _ad libitum_. Whatever may
have been its origin, it has become a usage with the force of law,
against which no individual is at liberty to act. Even if the Holy See
did not authorise the practice in the commencement, it must
necessarily have been introduced by the bishops of the day, and its
continuance for so long a period throughout the entire Irish Church
without any reclamation from ecclesiastical authority, would be quite
sufficient to show that all should conform to such a practice, which
in itself is so holy and useful, and calculated to confer such
advantages on the suffering souls in Purgatory.
We are therefore clearly of opinion that no priest can on principle
omit the _De profundis_, and we would take the liberty of reminding
him of the munificent endowments established in former ages of the
Irish Church for the exclusive object of having Requiem Masses said,
and securing the suffrages of the faithful in aid of the suffering
souls in Purgatory. We would refer our readers, for information on
this point, to Dr. Lanigan’s _Ecclesiastical History of Ireland_, vol.
iii. chap. 21.
With regard to the proper time for saying the _De profundis_, we think
that the practice of saying it at the foot of the altar is the most
correct. We know this to be the course adopted by many priests, who
descend from the altar, make a genuflexion or a reverence to the
altar, and then standing recite the _De profundis_. By this plan it is
made manifest that the _De profundis_ is a thing quite distinct from
the Mass, and not appertaining to it. However, it is right to say that
nothing decisive can be laid down as to the place and time of reciting
it. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites given by
Merati in his _Series Decretorum_, p. 436, which is as follows:
“Quando adest legatum quod sacerdos antequam discedat ab
altari, recitet aliquod Evangelium, Psalmum, seu orationem
post terminatam missam, debet oneri sibi injuncto
satisfacere post finem missae exutis vestibus sacerdotalibus
et cum sola cotta in altari vel in sacristia et sic legatum
adimplere S. R. C., 31 Augusti, 1669, in Conversanen”.
These words would appear to imply that in our case the sacred
vestments should be taken off. However, on referring to the decree
itself in Gardellini, we find its terms are not so comprehensive as
the interpretation of Merati would make them. The following are the
words:
“2339. Conversan. Capitulum Collegiatae Rosigliani Dioecesis
Conversanensis exposuit in S. R. C. Nicolaum _Franciscium in
ejus sub quo decessit testamento_, reliquisse ejus bona
dicto capitulo cum onere celebrandi Missam quotidianam et
singulis diebus veneris de Passione et cum onere, terminata
missa post Evangelium in principio erat verbum, etc.,
recitandi ipsam Passionem secundum Johannem. Et proinde cum
dicta dispositio sit contra Ritus Ecclesiasticos supplicavit
pro declaratione. An dicta passio recitanda sit post dictum
Evangelium alibi per celebrantem?
“Et S. eadem C. censuit: Recitandam esse post finem missae
exutis vestibus sacerdotalibus et cum sola cotta in altari
vel in sacristia. Hac die 31 Augusti, 1669”.
The words of this decree do not refer to a psalm or prayer, but simply
to the passion of St. John, and hence, as far as our question is
concerned, no conclusion can be clearly established except by analogy,
and by whatever weight may attach to the authority of Merati, who
manifestly thus extends the meaning of the decree. After writing these
lines, we have learned from a distinguished ecclesiastic, that there
exists a Rescript of the Holy See about the recital of the _De
profundis_ in Ireland after Mass. He has kindly promised to procure it
for a future number of the _Record_, when we shall gladly insert it.
The same reverend correspondent calls our attention to another matter
which indeed is of very great importance, and on which we shall make a
few remarks. Our correspondent says, that the altar bread used in this
country is of a very inferior kind, and not elegant, and that it
leaves on the corporal many fragments. If this be the case in some
parts of the country, it is unnecessary to say that it is a matter of
such importance that immediate attention should be called to it by the
parish priests or the superiors of the different churches. As far as
we are aware, we have no grounds for complaint on this head, as
generally speaking the breads are made in this city with care and
neatness and very few fragments fall from them. It is quite possible,
however, that in some districts sufficient care may not be bestowed on
this matter, and the breads may not be made with that care which the
majesty of the great Sacrifice demands. We have heard from persons
competent to give an opinion on the subject, that in some districts
abuses have crept in; for instance, when the superior of a church,
personally responsible for the due observance of the rubrics
concerning the Holy Sacrifice, leaves to a servant the making and
cutting of the breads for the use of the altar. In such cases there is
great danger that through carelessness or negligence they will not be
properly made. The cutters or the machines for making them in the
course of time will become impaired and quite unfit for their purpose,
and a mere servant may not try to remedy the evil. For this reason, we
would strongly recommend all concerned to engage some community of
nuns or others well versed in such matters, and who at the same time
fully understand the importance of what they are engaged in, to make
the altar breads. We have ourselves examined the altar breads made by
various communities, and seldom had we any reason to find fault,
except in some instances when the large altar breads appeared to us to
be too thick.
This suggestion, we think, will meet our reverend correspondent’s
question as to the improvements that may be made in connection with
this matter.
He then proceeds: “It may be observed here that the cutters too are of
no regular size. They are generally over small. I have seen breads no
larger than a sixpence intended for communicating the faithful. In the
distribution of such very small particles there is evidently danger of
irreverence”. No one can question the truth of what our correspondent
states; but we must say that we have generally found the breads
sufficiently large when made by the convents or others duly charged
with so important a matter, and we may also remark that the cutters
will not be made too small if there be no demand for them on the part
of the clergy. The small breads ought to be considerably larger than a
shilling and very little under a two-shilling piece.
We are much obliged to our reverend correspondent for calling our
attention to this matter, and we hope the observations which we have
taken the liberty of making, will have the effect of correcting any
abuses that may exist, and inducing all persons concerned to provide
themselves with cutters of a proper size, or what would be still
better, to secure the services of a religious community, or of others
duly authorized to prepare the breads for the use of the altar.
We shall close these observations by giving some extracts on the
present subject, from a very useful book published at Louvain, by Rev.
P. J. F. De Herdt, entitled _Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis_, which is very
highly esteemed.
I. Qualis debet esse Hostia, ut valide et licite sit
consecrabilis?
R. Ut valide consecretur, debet esse confecta ex tritico cum
aqua, saltem in majori quantitate, et esse non corrupta: ut
licite consecretur, debet esse 1° sine admixtione aliorum
granorum et liquorum praetor triticum et aquarm naturalem;
2° panis azymus; 3° recenter confecta (_Vide p. 2. n. 30.
ad. III._); 4° rotunda, integra et non fracta; 5° candida et
non maculata; 6° tenuis; 7° ordinariae magnitudinis; 8° cum
imagine Crucifixi, quam ei impressam esse convenit: in eo
tamen servandam esse consuetudinem respondit. S. R. C. 26.
_Ap. 1834. n. 4574. Vid. Quarti quaest. proaem. s. 5. puncto
4. dub. 3._ Hinc hi duo versus.
Candida, triticea, ac tenuis, non magna, rotunda.
Expers fermenti, non falsa, sit hostia Christi.
II. Quoad confectionem Hostiarum notanda sunt sequentia:
“Conveniret a Sacerdotibus, Clericis aut Religiosis hostias
in Missa usurpandas confici, ut omni errori, praesertim
admixtionis liquoris vel grani alterius obviaretur, et cum
majori nitore et reverentia tractarentur: passim enim
venales satis incurie tractantur et sordide, quod est
indecens in materia tanti tamque puri Sacrificii…. Ut autem
hostiae purissime sine ulla admixtione, nec non honestissime
fiant; haec erunt singulariter observanda: imprimis
triticum, si fieri potest, magno studio granatim eligatur;
electum in sacculo mundo et de bono panno ad hoc opus tantum
facto ponatur, atque a famulo boni studii ad molendinum
deferatur. Quo delato, famulus aliud frumentum in ipso
molendino moli prius faciat, ut illud, unde hostiae fieri
debent, sine aliqua sorde moli postea valeat. Reportata
farina, Clerici antequam incipiant, manus lavent, ipsamque
cribrent. Deinde unus super tabulam mundissimam ipsam
farinam aqua conspergat, et manibus fortiter compingat,
atque maceret. Postea in ferrum, in quo coquuntur, ponat et
coquat, advertens ut imago sacra Crucifixi, et non alia tam
majoribus, quam minoribus sit impressa. Nec non ut nitide et
studiose fiant, eas forcipibus ad id tantum paratis, vel
alio simili instrumento tondeat”. _Vinitor p. 3. tit. 3.
annot. 11._