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".