IN C(ENA
718
IN CCENA
and then in Italian by a cardinal-deacon. When the
reading was over the pope flung a lighted waxen torch
into the piazza beneath. The Bull contained a col-
lection of censures of excommunication against the
perpetrators of various offences, absolution from
which was reserved to the pope. The custom of
periodical publication of censures is an old one.
The tenth canon of the Council of York (1195) orders
all priests to publish censures of excommunication
against perjurers with bell and lighted candle thrice
in the year. The Council of London (1200) commands
the yearly publication of excommunication against
sorcerers, perjurers, incendiaries, thieves, and those
guilty of rape. The first list of censures of the
" Bulla Coen* " appeared in the fourteenth century,
and was added to and modified as time went on, until
its final revision under Urban VIII in the year 1627,
after which it remained practically unchanged till its
formal abrogation in the last century. Under Urban
V (1363) the list contained seven cases; under Greg-
ory XI (1372) nine; under Martin V (1420) ten;
under Julius II (1511) twelve: under Paul III (1536)
seventeen; under Ciregory XIII (1577) twenty, and
under the same pontiff in the year 15S3 twenty-one;
under Paul V (1606 and 1619) twenty; and the same
number in the final shape given to it by Urban VIII.
The main heads of the offences struck with ex-
communication in the Bull are as follows: (1)
Apostasy, heresy, and schism. (2) Appeals from
the pope to a general council. (3) Piracy in the
papal seas. (4) Plundering shipwrecked vessels, and
seizure of flotsam and jetsam. (5) The imposition of
new tolls and taxes, or the increase of old ones in
cases where such was not allowed by law or Ijy per-
mission of the Holy See. (6) The falsification of
Apostolic Briefs and' Bulls. (7) The supply of arms,
ammunition, or war-material to Saracens, Turks, or
other enemies of Christendom. (8) The hindering of
the exportation of food antl other commodities to
the seat of the Roman court. (9) Violence done to
travellers on their way to and from the Roman court.
(10) Violence done to cardinals, legates, nuncios,
etc. (12) Violence done to those who were treating
matters with the Roman court. (13) Appeals from
ecclesiastical to secular courts. (14) The avocation
of spiritual causes from ecclesiastical to lay courts.
(15) The subjection of ecclesiastics to lay courts.
(16) The molestation of ecclesiastical judges. (17) The usurpation of church goods,- or the .sequestra- tion of the same without leave of the proper eccle- siastical authorities. {IS) The imposition of tithes and taxes on ecclesiastics without special leave of the pope. (19) The interference of lay judges in capital or criminal causes of ecclesiastics. (20) The invasion, occupation, or usurpation of any part of the Pontifical States. There was a clause in the older editions of the Bull, ordering all patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops to see to its regular publication in their spheres of jurisdiction, but this was not carried out, as we learn from a letter of Pius V to the King of Naples. The efforts of this pope to bring about its solemn publica- tion in every part of the Church were foiled by the opposition of the reigning powers. Philip II, in the year 1.5S2, expelled the papal nuncio from his king- dom for attempting to publish the Bull. Its pul)li- cation was forbidilcn in France and Portiigal. Ru- dolf II (1576-1612) likewise oiipo.sed it. In spite of the opposition of princes it was known to the faithful through <liocesan rituals, provincial chapters of monks, and the promulgation of jubilees. Confessors were often ordered to have a copy of it in their possession; St. Charles Borromeo had a copy of it posted up in every confessional in his diocese. In Rome its solemn publication took place year after year, on Holy Thursday, until 1770. whe\i it was omitted by Clement XIV and never again resumed.
A widespread and growing opposition to papal pre-
rogatives in the eighteenth century, the works of
Febronius and Pereira, favouring the omniiiolence
of the State, eventually resulted in a general attack
on the Bull. A very few of its provisions were rooted
in the old medieval relations l)etwecn Clnireh and
State, when the pope could effectually champion the
cause of the oppressed, and by his sjiiritual power
remedy evils, with which temporal ruUrs were power-
less or unwilling to deal. They had outlived their
time. The excommunication of Ferdinatid, Duke of
Parma, by Clement XIII on 30 January, 1768, proved
the signal for a storm of opposition against the Holy
Thursday Bull in almost all the European states.
Joseph I of Portugal issued an edict on 2 .April, 1768,
declaring it trea.son to print, or sell, or distribute, or
make any judicial reference to the Bull. Similar
edicts followed in the same year from Ferdinand IV
of Naples, the Duke of Parma, the Prince of Monaco,
the free states of Genoa and Venice, and Maria Teresa,
Empress of Austria, to her subjects in Lombardy.
Jo.seph II followed the lead of his mother, and on 14
April, 1781, he, pope-like, informed his subjects that
" the power of absolving from the cases reserved in the
'Bulla Coense', which the pope had hitherto given
in the so-called quinquennial faculties, was now and
henceforth entirely withdrawn ". On 4 May of the
same year he ordered the Bull to be struck out of the
rituals, and no more use to be made of it. In 1769
appeared Le Bret's well-known attack on the Bull in
four volumes, under the title " Pragniatische Ge-
schichte der so berufenen Bulle in Coena Domini,
und ihrer fiirchterlichen Folgen fur Slaat und Kirche "
(Frankfort, 1769). Towards the end of the work he
appeals to the humanity, wi.-^dom, and magnanimity
of the newly-elected pontiff, Clement Xl\', to sup-
press it. Clement, who already as cardinal had ex-
pressed his view as to the necessity of living in iieace
and harmony with the heads of Christian states,
omitted its publication, but did not formally abrogate
it. St. Pius V had in.serted a clause in it, which stated
that it would continue to have the force of law until
the Holy See should substitute another in its place.
In the quinquennial faculties delivered to bishops
the pope continued to grant power to absolve from
its cases. This was done .so late as 1855 by Pius IX.
For these rea.sons theologians and canonists commonly
held that the main provisions of the Bidl were still
in force. Nevertheless, there was good ground for
supposing that the few obnoxious chni.«es that had
outlived their purpose, an<l in the changed times were
no longer applicable to the Christian comnumity,
had cea.sed to have any binding force. The Bidl was
formally abrogated by Pius IX through the issue of
the new Constitution "Apostolica' Sedis" (q. v.),
in which the censures against piracy, against ap-
propriating shipwrecked goods, agamst supplying
infiilels with war-material, and against the levying
of new tolls and taxes find no place. In the preamble
to the Constitution the pope remarks that, with
altereil times and customs, certain ecclesiastical
censures no longer fulfilled their original purpose, and
had ceased to be useful or opportune.
In the controversies that arose at the time of the Vatican Council about papal infallibility, the Bull "In Coena Domini" was dragged to the front, and Janus siiid of it that if any Bull bears the stamp of an ex cathe<lra decision it must surely be this one, which was confirmed again and again by so many popes. Hergenrother, afterwards made cardinal at the same time as Newman, had no difhculty in show- ing in his "Catholic Church and Christian State" the absurdity of this assertion.
Le Bret. op. rit.: Hausmann. Getchickte der pitpatUchen i?e- fen-alfiiUe (R.itLshon. ISBS). pp. 89-209 and .l.'jT-SS: Diesdor- FERin A'i>r/i*^/*'j-.. s. V. Bulla in Crmn Domini: HlNsruies. Da« Kirrhcnrerht der Kntholihen und I*rote-Bt(inten in Dcutarldtind, V (Berlin, I89.'>): Her(;enrother, Catholic Church and Cliristian Slale (London, 1876). John Prior.
