 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
According to some writers the origin of beatification and canonization in theCatholicChurch is to be traced back to the ancientpaganapotheosis. In his classic work on the subject (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione)Benedict XIV examines and at the very outset refutes this view. He shows so well the substantial differences between them that no right-thinkingperson need henceforth confound the two institutions or derive one from the other. It is a matter of history who were elevated to thehonour ofapotheosis, on what grounds, and by whose authority; no less clear is the meaning that was attached to it. Often thedecree was due to the statement of a singleperson (possibly bribed or enticed by promises, and with a view to fix thefraud more securely in the minds of an alreadysuperstitious people) that while the body of the new god was being burned, an eagle, in the case of the emperors, or a peacock (Juno's sacred bird), in the case of their consorts, was seen to carry heavenward the spirit of the departed (Livy, Hist.Rome, I, xvi; Herodian, Hist.Rome, IV, ii, iii).Apotheosis was awarded to most members of the imperialfamily, of whichfamily it was the exclusive privilege. No regard was had to virtues or remarkable achievements. Recourse was frequently had to this form of deification to escape popularhatred by distracting attention from the cruelty of imperial rulers. It is said that Romulus wasdeified by the senators who slew him; Poppaea owed herapotheosis to her imperial paramour,Nero, after he had kicked her to death; Geta had thehonour from his brotherCaracalla, who had got rid of him through jealousy.
Canonization in theCatholicChurch is quite another thing. TheCatholicChurch canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise ofheroic virtue, and only after this has beenproved by common repute forsanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the termcanonization, theChurch seeing in thesaints nothing more than friends and servants ofGod whose holy lives have made them worthy of His speciallove. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.;Augustine,City of God XXII.10; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).
Thetrue origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in theCatholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of thesaints. As was taught bySt. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94;Reply to Faustus XX.21),Catholics, while giving toGod alone adoration strictly so-called,honour thesaints because of theDivine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign withGod in theheavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words,CatholicshonourGod in Hissaints as the loving distributor ofsupernatural gifts. The worship oflatria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given toGod alone; the worship ofdulia (douleia), orhonour andhumble reverence, is paid thesaints; the worship ofhyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form ofdulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to theBlessed Virgin Mary. TheChurch (Augustine,Reply to Faustus XX.21; cf.City of God XXII.10) erects her altars toGod alone, though inhonour and memory of thesaints andmartyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerateangels (Exodus 23:20 sqq.;Joshua 5:13 sqq.;Daniel 8:15 sqq.;10:4 sqq.;Luke 2:9 sqq.;Acts 12:7 sqq.;Revelation 5:11 sqq.;7:1 sqq.;Matthew 18:10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship ofGod. And ifSt. Paul beseeches the brethren (Romans 15:30;2 Corinthians 1:11;Colossians 4:3;Ephesians 6:18-19) to help him by theirprayers for him toGod, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by theprayers of thesaints, and ask their intercession withhumility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live inheaven?
It is objected that the invocation ofsaints is opposed to the unique mediatorship ofChrist Jesus. There is indeed "one mediator ofGod and man, the manChrist Jesus". But He is our mediator in His quality of our common Redeemer; He is not our sole intercessor nor advocate, nor our sole mediator by way of supplication. In the eleventh session of theCouncil of Chalcedon (451) we find the Fathers exclaiming, "Flavianus lives after death! May the Martyrpray for us!" If we accept thisdoctrine of the worship of thesaints, of which there are innumerable evidences in the writings of the Fathers and theliturgies of theEastern andWestern Churches, we shall not wonder at the loving care with which theChurch committed to writing the sufferings of the earlymartyrs, sent these accounts from one gathering of thefaithful to another, and promoted the veneration of themartyrs.
Let one instance suffice. In the circular epistle of theChurch ofSmyrna (Eusebius,Church History IV.23) we find mention of the religious celebration of the day on whichSt. Polycarp sufferedmartyrdom (23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express the main purpose which theChurch has in the celebration of such anniversaries:
We have at last gathered his bones, which are dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be possible for us to assemble again, mayGod grant us to celebrate the birthday of hismartyrdom withgladness, thus to recall the memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us.
This anniversary celebration and veneration of themartyrs was a service of thanksgiving and congratulation, a token and an evidence of thejoy of those who engaged in it (Muratori, de Paradiso, x), and its general diffusion explains whyTertullian, though asserting with the Chiliasts that the departed just would obtain eternal glory only after thegeneral resurrection of the body, admitted an exception for themartyrs (De Resurrectione Carnis, xliii).
It must be obvious, however, that while private moralcertainty of theirsanctity and possession of heavenly glory may suffice for private veneration of thesaints, it cannot suffice for public and common acts of that kind. No member of a social body may, independently of its authority, perform an act proper to that body. It follows naturally that for the public veneration of thesaints theecclesiastical authority of thepastors and rulers of theChurch was constantly required. TheChurch had at heart, indeed, thehonour of themartyrs, but she did not therefore grantliturgical honours indiscriminately to all those who had died for the Faith.St. Optatus of Mileve, writing at the end of the fourth century, tells us (De Schism, Donat., I, xvi, in P.L., XI, 916-917) of a certain noble lady, Lucilla, who was reprehended by Caecilianus,Archdeacon of Carthage, for havingkissed beforeHoly Communion the bones of one who was either not amartyr or whose right to the title was unproved.
The decision as to themartyr having died for hisfaith inChrist, and the consequent permission of worship, lay originally with thebishop of the place in which he had borne his testimony. Thebishop inquired into the motive of his death and, finding he had died amartyr, sent his name with an account of hismartyrdom to other churches, especially neighboring ones, so that, in event of approval by their respectivebishops, the cultus of themartyr might extend to their churches also, and that thefaithful, as we read ofSt. Ignatius in the "Acts" of hismartyrdom (Ruinart, Acta Sincera Martyrum, 19) "might hold communion with the generousmartyr ofChrist (generoso Christi martyri communicarent). Martyrs whose cause, so to speak, had been discussed, and the fame of whosemartyrdom had been confirmed, were known asproved (vindicati)martyrs. As far as the word is concerned it may probably not antedate the fourth century, when it was introduced in theChurch atCarthage; but the fact is certainly older. In the earlier ages, therefore, this worship of thesaints was entirely local and passed from one church to another with the permission of theirbishops. This is clear from the fact that in none of theancient Christian cemeteries are there foundpaintings ofmartyrs other than those who had suffered in that neighborhood. It explains, also, almost the universal veneration very quickly paid to somemartyrs, e.g.,St. Lawrence,St. Cyprian of Carthage,Pope St. Sixtus of Rome [Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1903), 284].
The worship ofconfessors — of those, that is, who died peacefully after a life ofheroic virtue — is not as ancient as that of themartyrs. The word itself takes on a different meaning after the earlyChristian periods. In the beginning it was given to those who confessedChrist when examined in the presence of enemies of the Faith (Baronius, in his notes to Ro. Mart., 1 January, D), or, asBenedict XIV explains (op. cit., II, c. ii, n. 6), to those who died peacefully after having confessed the Faith before tyrants or other enemies of theChristian religion, and undergone tortures or suffered other punishments of whatever nature. Later on, confessors were those who had lived a holy life and closed it by a holy death inChristian peace. It is in this sense that we now treat of the worship paid to confessors.
It was in the fourth century, as is commonly held, that confessors were first given publicecclesiasticalhonour, though occasionally praised in ardent terms by earlier Fathers, and although an abundant rewards (multiplex corona) is declared bySt. Cyprian to be theirs (De Zelo et Livore, col. 509; cf. Innoc. III, De Myst. Miss., III, x;Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, v, no 3 sqq;Bellarmine, De Missâ, II, xx, no 5). StillBellarmine thinks it uncertain when confessors began to be objects of cultus, and asserts that it was not before 800, when the feasts of Sts.Martin andRemigius are found in the catalogue of feasts drawn up by the Council ofMainz. This opinion ofInnocent III andBenedict XIV is confirmed by the implicit approval ofSt. Gregory the Great (Dial., I, xiv, and III, xv) and by well attested facts; in the East, for example,Hilarion (Sozomen, III, xiv, and VIII, xix),Ephrem (Greg. Nyss., Orat. in laud. S. Ephrem), and other confessors were publiclyhonoured in the fourth century; and, in the West,St. Martin of Tours, as is gathered plainly from the oldestBreviaries and the MozarabicMissal (Bona, Rer. Lit., II, xii, no. 3), andSt. Hilary of Poitiers, as can be shown from the very ancient Mass-book known as "Missale Francorum", were objects of a like cultus in the same century (Martigny, Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes, s.v. Confesseurs).
The reason of this veneration lies, doubtless, in the resemblance of the confessors' self-denying andheroically virtuous lives to the sufferings of themartyrs; such lives could truly be called prolongedmartyrdoms. Naturally, therefore, suchhonour was first paid to ascetics (Duchesne, op. cit., 284) and only afterwards to those who resembled in their lives the very penitential and extraordinary existence of the ascetics. Sotrue is this that the confessors themselves are frequently calledmartyrs.St. Gregory Nazianzen callsSt. Basil amartyr (Orat. de laud., P.L., XXXVI, 602);St. Chrysostom applies the same title to Eustachius of Antioch (Opp. II, 606);St. Paulinus of Nola writes ofSt. Felix of Nola that he won heavenly honours,sine sanguinemartyr ("a bloodlessmartyr" — Poem., XIV, Carm. III, v, 4);St. Gregory the Great stylesZeno of Verona amartyr (Dial. III. xix), and Metronius gives to St. Roterius (Acta SS., II, May 11, 306) the same title. Later on, the names of confessors were inserted in thediptychs, and due reverence was paid them. Theirtombs werehonoured (Martigny, loc. cit.) with the same title (martyria) as those of themartyrs. It remainedtrue, however, at all times that it was unlawful to venerate confessors without permission of theecclesiastical authority as it had been so to veneratemartyrs (Benedict XIV, loc. cit., vi).
We have seen that for several centuries thebishops, in some places only theprimates andpatriarchs (August., Brevic. Collat. cum Donatistis, III, xiii, no 25 in P.L., XLIII, 628), could grant tomartyrs and confessors publicecclesiasticalhonour; suchhonour, however, was always decreed only for the local territory over which the grantors heldjurisdiction. Still, it was only theBishop of Rome's acceptance of the cultus that made it universal, since he alone could permit or command in the Universal Church [Gonzalez Tellez, Comm. Perpet. in singulos textus libr. Decr. (III, xlv), in cap. i, De reliquiis et vener. Sanct.]. Abuses, however, crept into this form of discipline, due as well to indiscretions of popular fervour as to the carelessness of somebishops in inquiring into the lives of those whom they permitted to behonoured assaints. Towards the close of the eleventh century thepopes found itnecessary to restrict episcopal authority on this point, and decreed that thevirtues andmiracles ofpersons proposed for public veneration should be examined in councils, more particularly ingeneral councils.Urban II,Calixtus II, and Eugenius III followed this line of action. It happened, even after these decrees, that "some, following the ways of thepagans and deceived by thefraud of theevil one,venerated as asaint a man who had been killed while intoxicated".Alexander III (1159-81) took occasion to prohibit his veneration in these words: "For the future you will not presume to pay him reverence, as, even thoughmiracles were worked through him, it would not allow you to revere him as asaint unless with the authority of theRoman Church" (c. i, tit. cit., X. III, xlv).Theologians do not agree as to the full import of thisdecretal. Either a new law was made (Bellarmine, De Eccles. Triumph., I, viii), in which case thepope then for the first time reserved the right of beatification, or a pre-existing law was confirmed. As thedecretal did not put an end to all controversy, and somebishops did not obey it in as far as it regarded beatification (which right they had certainly possessed hitherto),Urban VIII published, in 1634, aBull which put an end to all discussion by reserving to theHoly See exclusively not only its immemorial right of canonization, but also that of beatification.
Before dealing with the actual procedure in causes of beatification and canonization, it is proper to define these terms precisely and briefly in view of the preceding considerations.
Canonization, generally speaking, is adecree regarding the publicecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If thedecree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is adecree ofcanonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is adecree ofbeatification.
In the ancientdiscipline of the Church, probably even as late asAlexander III,bishops could in their severaldioceses allow public veneration to be paid tosaints, and such episcopal decrees were not merely permissive, but, in my opinion, preceptive. Such decrees, however, could not prescribe universalhonour; the effect of an episcopal act of this kind, was equivalent to our modern beatification. In such cases there was, properly speaking, no canonization, unless with the consent of thepope extending the cultus in question, implicitly or explicitly, and imposing it by way of precept upon theChurch at large. In the more recent discipline beatification is a permission to venerate, granted by the Roman Pontiffs with restriction to certain places and to certainliturgical exercises. Thus it is unlawful to pay to theperson known asBlessed (i.e. theBeatus, Beatified), public reverence outside of the place for which the permission is granted, or to recite an office in hishonour, or to celebrateMass withprayers referring to him, unless specialindult be had; similarly, other methods ofhonour have been interdicted. Canonization is a precept of theRoman Pontiff commanding public veneration to be paid an individual by the Universal Church. To sum up, beatification, in the present discipline, differs from canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2) a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a universal precept.
In exceptional cases one or other element of this distinction may be lacking; thus,Alexander III not only allowed but ordered the public cultus of Bl. William of Malavalle in theDiocese of Grosseto, and his action was confirmed byInnocent III;Leo X acted similarly with regard to Bl.Hosanna for the city and district ofMantua;Clement IX with regard toBl. Rose of Lima, when he selected her as principal patron ofLima and ofPeru; andClement X, by making her patron of all America, thePhilippines, and the Indies.Clement X also choseBl. Stanislaus Kostka as patron ofPoland,Lithuania, and the allied provinces. Again, in respect to universality,Sixtus IV permitted the cultus of Bl. John Boni for the Universal Church. In all these instances there was only beatification. The cultus ofBl. Rose of Lima, it istrue, was general andobligatory for America, but, lacking complete preceptive universality, was not strictly speaking canonization (Benedict XIV, op. sit., I, xxxix).
Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal andobligatory. But in imposing thisobligation thepope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e.formal canonization andequivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when thepope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant ofGod to bevenerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such asaint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when hisheroic virtues (ormartyrdom) andmiracles are related by reliable historians, and the fame of hismiraculous intercession is uninterrupted. Many examples of such canonization are to be found inBenedict XIV; e.g. SaintsRomuald,Norbert,Bruno,Peter Nolasco,Raymond Nonnatus, John of Matha,Felix of Valois,Queen Margaret of Scotland,King Stephen of Hungary,Wenceslaus Duke of Bohemia, andGregory VII. Such instances afford a goodproof of the caution with which theRoman Church proceeds in these equivalent canonizations.St. Romuald was not canonized until 439 years after his death, and thehonour came to him sooner than to any of the others mentioned. We may add that this equivalent canonization consists usually in the ordering of anOffice andMass by thepope inhonour of thesaint, and that mere enrollment in the Roman Martyrology does not by any means imply thishonour (Benedict XIV, l, c., xliii, no 14).
Is thepopeinfallible in issuing adecree of canonization? Mosttheologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion ofSt. Antoninus, Melchior Cano,Suarez,Bellarmine,Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus,Schmalzgrüber,Barbosa,Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16,St. Thomas says: "Since thehonour we pay thesaints is in a certain sense a profession offaith, i.e., abelief in the glory of theSaints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of theChurch is not liable toerror." These words ofSt. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positiveinfallibility, have been interpreted by hisschool in favour ofpapal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. Thisinfallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point ofpiousbelief.Theologians generally agree as to the fact ofpapal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to apapaldecree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is offaith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of theHoly See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor ofecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not beendefined by theChurch.
What is the object of thisinfallible judgment of thepope? Does he define that theperson canonized is inheaven or only that he has practicedChristian virtues in anheroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that theperson canonized is inheaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:
"Inhonour of . . . wedecree and define that Blessed N. is aSaint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue ofsaints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."
(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)
There is no question ofheroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand,sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise ofheroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practisedheroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life forChrist, have justly deserved to be considered asaint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments oftheologians forpapal infallibility in the canonization ofsaints are based on the fact that on such occasions thepopes believe and assert that the decision which they publish isinfallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).
This general agreement oftheologians as topapal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists andtheologians generally deny theinfallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).
We must first distinguish causes of martyrs from those of confessors orvirgins, since the method followed is not entirely identical in both cases.
In order to secure beatification (the most important and difficult step in the process of canonization) the regular procedure is as follows:
This procedure is followed in all cases of formal beatification in causes of bothconfessors andmartyrs proposed in the ordinary way (per viam non cultus). Those proposed as coming under the definition of cases excepted (casus excepti) byUrban VIII are treated in another way. In such cases it must beproved that an immemorial public veneration (at least for 100 years before thepromulgation, in 1640, of thedecrees ofUrban VIII) has been paid the servant ofGod, whetherconfessor ormartyr. Such cause is proposed under the title of "confirmation of veneration" (de confirmatione cultus); it is dealt with in an ordinary meeting of theCongregation of Rites. When the difficulties of thepromotor of the Faith have been satisfied, a pontificaldecree confirming the cultus ispromulgated. Beatification of this kind is called equivalent or virtual.
The canonization of confessors ormartyrs may be taken up as soon as twomiracles are reported to have been worked at their intercession, after the pontifical permission of public veneration as described above. At this stage it is only required that the twomiracles worked after the permission awarding a public cultus be discussed in three meetings of the congregation. The discussion proceeds in the ordinary way; if themiracles be confirmed another meeting (super tuto) is held. Thepope then issues aBull of Canonization in which he not only permits, but commands, the public cultus, or veneration, of thesaint.
It is with the utmost possible brevity that I have described the elements of a process of beatification or canonization. It may be easily conjectured that considerable time must elapse before any cause of beatification or canonization can be conducted, from the first steps of the information, inquiry, or process, to the issuing of thedecreesuper tuto. According to the constitution of this Congregation, more than one important discussion (dubia majora) cannot be proposed at the same time. It must be remembered
To execute all this business there is but one weekly meeting (congressus), a kind of minor congregation in which only the cardinal prefect and the major officials vote; in it less important and practical questions are settled regarding rites as well as causes, and answers are given, andrescripts which thepope afterwards verbally approves. The other meetings of the congregation (ordinary, rotal, and "upon virtues andmiracles") may be as few as sixteen in the course of the year. Some other cause must therefore be found for the slow progress of causes of beatification or canonization than a lack of good will or activity on the part of the Congregation of Rites.
It will not be out of place to give succinctly the ordinary actual expenses of canonization and beatification. Of these expenses some arenecessary others merely discretionary, e.g. the expenses incurred in obtaining the differentrescripts) others, thoughnecessary, are not specified. Such are the expenses of the solemnity in theVatican Basilica, and forpaintings representing the newly beatified which are afterwards presented to thepope, thecardinals, officials, and consultors of the Congregation of Rites. The limits of this class of expenses depend on the postulator of the cause. If he chooses to spend a moderate sum the entire cause from the first process to the solemn beatification will not cost him less than $20,000. The expenses of the process from beatification to canonization will easily exceed $30,000. In illustration of this we subjoin the final account of the expenses of the public solemnities in theVatican Basilica for the canonization byLeo XIII, of SaintsAnthony Maria Zaccaria andPeter Fourier, as published by the Most Rev. Diomede Panici, titularArchbishop ofLaodicea, then Secretary of the Congregation of Rites.
To decoration of the Basilica, lights,architectural designs, labour, and superintendence —Lire 152,840.58
Procession, Pontifical Mass, preparation of altars in Basilica — 8,114.58
Cost of gifts presented to Holy Father — 1,438.87
Hangings, Sacred Vestments, etc. — 12,990.60
Recompense for services and money loaned — 3,525.07
To the Vatican Chapter as perquisites for decorations and candles — 18,000.00
Propine and Competenza — 16,936.00
Incidental and unforeseen expenses — 4,468,40
Total — 221,849.10 or (taking thelira equivalent to $.193 in 1913United States money) $42,816.87.
APA citation.Beccari, C.(1907).Beatification and Canonization. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
MLA citation.Beccari, Camillo."Beatification and Canonization."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 2.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1907.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Janet Grayson.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.