Книги символические инославных исповеданий

Books of symbolic heterodox confessions I. Books symbolic of the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Eastern Church, based on the basic position that universal-infallible significance in the Christian Church, according to the well-known criterion of Vincent of Lirinsky: “id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est,” can only have a teaching that serves as an expression of the voice of the entire true Church of Christ, and therefore does not own symbolic books in the strict sense of the word, but only owns more or less precise statements of symbolic doctrine such as, for example, the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs”, “Long Catechism” and so on. On the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church, having lost in the matter of disclosing the true teaching of Christ the real criterion expressed in the indicated words of Vincent of Lirinsky and having instead put as a similar criterion the voice of one person of the Roman high priest, in contrast to the Orthodox Eastern Church, has several symbolic books in the strict sense of the word, i.e. such books that have an obligatory and infallible meaning. Of these faiths, the first place in importance in the Roman Catholic Church is occupied by: 1) Canones et decreta concilii Tridentine (“Canons and decrees of the Council of Trent”), which, as is known, took place under Popes Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV in Trident (Triente) on December 13. 1545 - March 11, 1547, in Bologna April 21 1547 – 13 Sep. 1549; then again in Trent May 1, 1551 - April 28. 1552 and 13 Jan. 1562 – 4 Dec. 1563. The primacy of the definitions of this council in comparison with the definitions of other councils recognized as ecumenical in the Roman Catholic Church is determined by the fact that it finally clarified and sanctioned almost the entire Roman Catholic religious system in its opposition to the Protestant system. According to their general content, the definitions of the said council, corresponding to the 25 cathedral sessions, divided into 25 departments, can be divided into two classes: a) decreta de fide (decrees on faith) and b) decreta de reformatione seu de disciplina (decrees on disciplinary reforms). The first contain the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in the strict sense of the word, expressed for the most part in the form of antitheses to the Protestant teaching on the corresponding religious points; the latter contain various kinds of disciplinary regulations aimed at improving the practical side in the Roman Church by eliminating various kinds of abuses that have taken root in this church and, in most cases, noted by representatives of Protestantism. In particular, of all the decrees of the Council of Trent, the most significant are the decrees of the meetings: the fourth - decretum de canonibus scripturis; decretum de editione et usu sacrorum librorum (decrees on the canonical writings and on the publication and use of sacred books), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic teaching on the sources of Christian revelation is established in the sense of including the so-called non-canonical writings among the canonical books and in the sense of placing church tradition (the local Roman Catholic Church) on the same level with the Holy Scriptures. Scripture; fifth meeting - decretum de peccato originate (decree on original sin), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic doctrine is established about the primitive state of the first-created man in the sense of a supernaturally random gift, internally not connected with the very nature of man, and about original sin in the sense of a person’s loss of primitive rightness, as an externally supernatural gift, not accompanied, due to the fact that any significant change in human nature; sixth session - decretum de justificatione (decree on justification), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is affirmed in the sense of recognizing the essential significance not only of faith, but also of good works; seventh meeting - decretum de sacramentis in gerere; de baptismo, de confirmatione (decree on the sacraments in general and in particular on the sacraments of baptism and confirmation), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacraments in general and in particular on the sacraments of baptism and confirmation is affirmed in the sense of recognizing the sevenfold number of sacraments and the actual meaning behind them, regardless of the faith of those approaching them; thirteenth meeting - decretum de sanctissimo eucharistiae sacramento (decree on the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is affirmed in the sense of recognizing the transubstantiation of St. Gifts in the Body and Blood of Christ; of the fourteenth meeting - doctrina de sanctissimis poenitentiae et extremae unctionis sacramentis (decree on the most holy sacraments of repentance and consecration of unction), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacraments of repentance and consecration of unction is expounded in the sense of calling for the real meaning of these sacraments; twenty-first session - doctrina de communione sub utraque specie et parvulorum (the doctrine of the communion of the laity and infants under both types), in which, in contrast to the Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic teaching on the sacrament of the Eucharist is set forth in the sense of recognizing the legal communion of the laity and infants under one type; twenty-second meeting - doctrina de sacrificio missae; decretum de observandis et evitandis in celebratione missae (the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice in connection with the indication of the real meaning and abuses in its commission), which, in contrast to the Protestant teaching, sets forth the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist in the sense of recognizing the mysteriously sacrificial meaning behind it; twenty-third session - vega et catholica doctrina de sacramento ordinis, ad condemnandoserrores nostri temporis (true and catholic teaching about the sacrament of the priesthood in connection with the condemnation of modern false teachings about this sacrament), in which, in contrast to the Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic teaching about the sacrament of the priesthood is established in the sense of recognizing the gracious meaning of the said sacrament; twenty-fourth session - doctrina de sacramento matrimoni (the doctrine of the sacrament of marriage), in which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, the Roman Catholic doctrine of marriage is set forth in the sense of recognizing the gracious and sacramental meaning behind this sacrament; twenty-fifth meeting - decretum de purgatorio; de invocatione et veneratione et reliquis sanctorum et sacris imaginibus; decretum de indulgentiis (decree on purgatory, on the invocation and veneration of saints, their remains and on sacred images and indulgences, which, in contrast to Protestant teaching, sets out the Roman Catholic teaching on the invocation and veneration of saints in connection with other points of a related nature, for example, on purgatory and indulgences, on the veneration of the remains of saints and their images, etc. In view of such importance of the Council of Trent, it is quite natural that representatives of the Roman Catholic Church with particular zeal protected the integrity and even the general immutability of its definitions. So, on January 26, 1564, on the day of confirmation of the above-mentioned definitions, Pope Pius IV, at the suggestion of legates Marone and Simonett, issued a special bull, which, under the threat of severe punishment, prohibited clergy and secular persons from drawing up comments and even notes to the definitions of the Council of Trent without special papal permission. Somewhat later, Popes Pius and Sixtus V entrusted special congregations of cardinals with the clarification of the most obscure definitions of the Council of Trent, but only of a disciplinary and ecclesiastical nature. The publication of these clarifications was initially prohibited, and this prohibition was observed so strictly that the publication of these clarifications by Gallemart was included in the Index librorum prohibitorum. Only in 1718 did the publication of these interpretations of the Trent Decrees follow, the totality of which (interpretations) reached 103 volumes by 1843. The indicated importance of the definitions of the Council of Trent did not prevent the different attitudes of secular authorities in Roman Catholic states towards them. In Italy (with the exception of Naples), in Poland and Portugal, immediate and unconditional acceptance of the definitions of the said council followed; in Spain, Naples and the Netherlands, royal consent was required; in France, Germany and Hungary, formal recognition of the definitions of the Council of Trent by the secular authorities has not yet followed, although in fact the clergy of these states recognize the categorical significance of these definitions. 2) In close and inextricable connection with the definitions of the Council of Trent, the Professio fidei Tridentinae (“Confession of the Council of Trent”) is usually supplied in the Roman Catholic Church. The publication of this “Confession” was caused by the desire of the fathers of the Council of Trent to give believers such a statement of faith, which, due to its brevity and clarity, could be assimilated by each of them and the study of which - therefore - could be made the duty of every faithful member of the Roman Catholic Church. Based on this kind of idea, the fathers of the Council of Trent, back in the 24th meeting on November 11, 1563, decided that at the end of the mentioned council, provincial councils should be convened, which were charged with drawing up a uniform statement of faith of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of the definitions of the Council of Trent. Without waiting, however, for the convening of these provincial councils, Pope Pius IV, immediately after the end of the Council of Trent, himself drew up the proposed statement of faith and already in 1864 promulgated it in two bulls Injunctum nobis and Sancrosancta. Under what name Pius IV intended to promulgate this creed, it is impossible to say exactly, because in these bulls it does not bear any specific name. In the Roman bullaries it is called: Forma professionis fidei catholicae (“Model of the confession of the Catholic faith”) and Forma professions fidei orthodoxae (“Model of the confession of the Orthodox faith”); in the editions of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent: Forma juramenti professions fidei (“Model of the oath of confession of faith”). The usual title of the book we are considering is its title: Professio fidei Tridentinae (“Confession of Faith of the Council of Trent”). As the name itself shows, this confession contains in a brief form the definitions of the Council of Trent on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. What is new in comparison with the definitions of the council we are considering in the Professio fidei Tridentinae is: a) the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church as a holy, catholic and apostolic church (sancta, catholica et apostolica), the mother and leader of all other churches (mater et magistra omnium ecclesiarum) and b) an exhortation to unconditional obedience to the Roman bishop - the head of this church, as the successor of St. Peter and the vicar (vicar) of Jesus Christ. Recognition of the symbolic significance of the Professio in all Roman Catholic states followed silently, but in the most decisive manner. One might even say that none of the symbolic books of the Roman Catholic Church penetrated so deeply into the life of the Roman Church as the Confession we are considering. 3) The greatest authority after the indicated symbolic statements of faith in the Roman Catholic Church is Catechismus romanus (“Roman Catechism”). The immediate reason for its composition was Luther’s publication of two catechisms in connection with their rapid spread in the West. To somewhat weaken this success of Luther's catechisms, the Roman Catholic princes Ferdinand the German and Philip of Spain turned to the pope demanding that a short catechism of the Roman Catholic doctrine be compiled. The need to compile such a catechism was then expressed by an entire provincial council, held in Cologne in 1536. The result of this was the appearance of the catechism of the Jesuit Peter Canisius [see. "Enz." VIII, 250–252], which appeared in two editions - a large one called: Summa doctrinae et institutionis christianae (“The essence of teaching and instruction in the Christian faith”) in 1554, and a small one called Institutio christianae pietatis (“Instruction in Christian piety”) in 1556. 2 And after the appearance of the great Canisian Catechism, the Roman Catholic princes Ferdinand the German and Charles IX of France, proceeding from the assumption that a catechism issued on behalf of the whole council would have greater authority, again turned to the fathers of the Council of Trent with a proposal to compile a catechism. In accordance with this proposal, already on January 22, 1562, a resolution was made in the private congregation to draw up a plan for the catechism. The council, however, intended to stop at this compilation of only a plan for the catechism. Then the emperor and the king again entered the council with an insistent proposal to compile a catechism and to correct the Breviarium Missale. After this proposal, in the fall of the same 1562, a special commission of several persons was entrusted with the preparation of a catechism. Busy with other matters, the members of the commission delayed for a long time in carrying out the assignment entrusted to them, and only by the 24th meeting of the council on November 22–25, 1563, they presented to the council preliminary work on drawing up a catechism similar to the draft of the latter. However, this project was considered unsatisfactory, mainly because it was unpopular. Then the papal legates at the last meeting of the council - the 25th (December 4, 1568) proposed to entrust the compilation of the catechism to the Roman high priest Pius IV himself, and the council agreed with this proposal. Realizing the importance of this order, Pius IV did not undertake the sole execution of it. Instead, he entrusted the compilation of the catechism to four famous theologians of that time - three bishops: Leonardo Marini, Egidio Foscarari, Muzio Calini and the Portuguese scholar Francesco Foureiro, three of whom - Marini, Foscarari and Foureiro - were Dominicans. They worked for almost the whole year 1564 under the leadership of Cardinal Borromean [see. "Enz." II]. At the very end of 1564, they presented the first edition of the catechism to Pius IV, who in turn, in the summer of 1565, entrusted the stylistic processing of the catechism to the then-famous stylist Pogian, and thus the second edition of the catechism appeared. The successor of Pius IV, Pius V, however, was not satisfied with this edition of the “Roman Catechism” and again entrusted the revision of the latter to an entire commission of the most famous theologians at that time, chaired by Sirlet, from where the third and final edition of the catechism appeared in July 1566. In September 1566, the first copy of this catechism was printed by Paul Manutius under the title: Catechismus ex decreto concilii Tridentini ad parachos, Pii V Pontificis maximi jussu editus (“Catechism published by order of the greatest high priest Pius V for the dioceses on the basis of the decree of the Council of Trent”), after which countless editions followed in various formats. According to its general plan, the “Roman Catechism” is divided into four parts, of which the first speaks about the need to preach the word of God, about preserving and communicating to the believers the pure teaching of Christ, especially in view of the appearance of false prophets, about the reasons that guided the Council of Trent in ordering the publication of the catechism, about the method of using the latter, and at the end is attached an explanation of the Apostolic Symbol with brief comments about the importance faith in general, the apostolic faith in particular. The second part contains a statement of the doctrine of the sacraments in general and of each of the sacraments in particular; the third part is the teaching about the Ten Commandments of the Lord, in connection with the teaching about the law of God, and the last, fourth part contains an explanation of the Lord's Prayer with brief remarks about the necessity, benefits and various types of prayer. In its general content, the “Roman Catechism” is adjacent to the teaching of the Council of Trent, only in some points expanding the teaching of the latter, for example, when revealing the doctrine of papal primacy. In view of the fact that the “Roman Catechism”, at its very appearance, was intended to be not only a symbolic statement of religion, but also an educational book, it is quite natural that at the very beginning of its appearance it went through many editions. Of these, the most famous are the German editions of Fabricius Leodius of 1570, in which edition the catechism was divided for the first time into four parts, and then the edition of Count Goya (Noua) of 1572, but due to the fact that with numerous editions of the “Roman Catechism” the original text was lost, in 1761, by order of Pope Clement XIII, it was the text of the first edition of Manutius has been restored. Of the later editions, the most famous are those of Streitwolf and Klener. – The symbolic meaning of the “Roman Catechism” is undoubtedly. It was recommended for use not only by a number of Roman pontiffs, for example, Pius V, Gregory XIII, Urban VIII, Clement XI, Benedict XIII and Clement XIII, but also by provincial and diocesan councils, for example, Milan 1565, Benevento 1567, Ravenna 1568. Salzburg 1569, Osnabrück 1571, etc. For some time, the symbolic meaning of the “Roman Catechism” was disputed by the Jesuits for the teaching it contained about the relationship of grace to the free powers of man in the spirit of the Dominicans and at the same time in the spirit of the views of the blessed. Augustine, but all their efforts to weaken the authority of the Roman Catechism remained in vain. True, over time, the “Roman Catechism” becomes less widespread in the Roman Catholic world, but this is not at all explained by the fact that it has lost its symbolic meaning, but by the fact that, as originally intended for the clergy, it turned out to be somewhat difficult for ordinary believers to understand [Cf. also "Enz." IX]. 4) Next to the definitions of the Council of Trent, in order of importance, should be placed the definitions of the Vatican Council, which was under Pope Pius IX and lasted from December 8. 1869 to 20 Oct. 1870 The importance of the resolutions of this council is determined by the fact that through it, through the dogmatization of papal infallibility, the Roman Catholic system received its final completion. Although this completion of this system was prepared by the entire preceding history of the Roman Catholic Church, nevertheless, the papal dogma - due to its clear contradiction to the revealed teaching - was approved at the Vatican Council itself not without hesitation, which is why the very decisions of the council, in which the said dogma found its sanction, survived, so to speak, several stages. The primary stage of the definitions of the Vatican Council begins with the publication of a district message on July 9, 1868 by Pius IX entitled: Aeterni Patris unigenitus Filius, in which an invitation to the council was expressed and in which the reason for convening the latter was the elimination of various kinds of disorder caused to the church by the intervention of civil authorities. A little later, on February 6, 3869, in the official papal journal “Civilta cattolica,” the purpose of convening the council was clarified in more detail, namely: a) dogmatizing the Syllabus, i.e., published by Pius IX on December 8. 1864 bull, which pointed out and condemned the main errors of modern times: pantheism, rationalism, indifferentism, latitudinarism, etc., and b) sanctioning the absolutist curial system along with the condemnation of the episcopal system, which had been established in the Roman Catholic Church since the Councils of Constance and Basel. At first it seemed that the Vatican Council would not go further than the implementation of these tasks. At one of the very first meetings, his fathers were offered the first edition of a dogmatic definition entitled: Schema constitutionis dogmaticae contra multiplices errores, ex rationalisto derivalos, patrum examini propositum (“Scheme of a dogmatic definition against numerous errors that have degenerated from rationalism, submitted to the examination of the conciliar fathers”), which edition is nothing more than a reworking of the content Syllabus. Soon, however, it became clear that the leaders of the cathedral did not want to stop at authorizing only the indicated edition. 10 Jan In 1870, the specified edition of the dogmatic definition was rejected and returned to the commission for revision, and on January 21, the fathers were offered a second edition of the dogmatic definition under the title: Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de ecclesia Christi patrum examini propositum (“Scheme of the dogmatic definition of the Church of Christ, submitted for examination by the conciliar fathers”). In this edition, the dogmatic scheme is divided into three parts, of which the first sets out in chapters 1–10 the general doctrine of the church, in chapters 11–12. the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop and, in 13–15, the doctrine of the relationship of the church to the state; in the second part, in 21 canons, opponents of the teaching set forth in the first part are anathematized; in the third part, in a whole series of so-called Annotationes (comments), the provisions expressed in the first two parts are substantiated and clarified in more detail. In general, this edition of the dogmatic definition is a reworking of the Syllabus, only expanded at some points with significant additions. In one of these additions, which constitutes the 26th canon, the papal dogma is already directly affirmed 3. However, in this edition of the dogmatic definition there is still no doctrine of papal infallibility. This gap was filled on March 6, 1870, when the fathers of the council were offered an additional member in the decree on the primacy of the Roman bishop, which unambiguously expressed the idea that the Roman bishop is infallible in matters of faith and morals. With this addition, the dogmatic scheme was again proposed to the fathers of the council on March 14, 1870, in a significantly revised form. And finally, on April 29 of the same year, the latest edition of the dogmatic definition under. title: Constitute dogmatica prima de ecclesia Christi (“The first dogmatic definition of the Church of Christ”), divided into four chapters: a) de apostolici Primatus in beato Petro institutions (“On the establishment of the apostolic primacy in the person of Blessed Peter”); b) de perpetulate Primatus beati Petri in romanis ponti ficibus (“about the constant continuation of the primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman bishops”): c) de Vi et ratione primatusromani pontiticis (“about the power and essence of the primacy of the Roman bishop”): d) de romani pontificis infallibilii magisterio (“about the infallible magisterium of the Roman high priest”). On July 18, 1870, this dogmatic scheme was sanctioned by an overwhelming majority of votes, and papal infallibility was thus recognized as an unquestionable proposition. Despite the clear contradiction of these definitions of the Vatican Council with the teachings of Christian revelation, these definitions received universal significance throughout the Roman Catholic world. Such a meaning was rejected only by representatives of the Old Catholic movement led by Dellinger, who, as is known, separated from the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church. Having significance in itself, as an exponent of symbolic teaching on well-known dogmatic issues, the Vatican Council has even greater significance in the Roman Catholic Church due to the fact that, thanks to the dogma of papal infallibility approved by it, in the same church all those religious acts have a symbolic meaning, in the publication of which the primary significance belongs to the Roman bishops, and which in one way or another contributed to the clarification of the papal dogma. In the number of such confessional acts, according to Roman Catholic theologians, should be included, first of all, 4a) the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils of the first millennium, because, in the opinion of ultramontant theologians, the primary significance allegedly belonged to the Roman bishops and because the seeds for the further development of the papal system were allegedly laid on them. Then, 4b) the definitions of the councils recognized in this church as ecumenical also have a symbolic meaning in the Roman Catholic Church: the Council of Constantinople in 869, which condemned Patriarch Photius and established the primacy of the Roman see in the Christian Church, the councils: the Lateran of 1116, which recognized the consecrations of Donatist bishops as valid if they ceased the schism; Lateran 1123, which prohibited: clergy from having women with them other than their closest relatives, laymen from acting as teachers in religious matters, etc.; Lateran 1139, which condemned simony in obtaining church positions and ordered clergy to be more careful in assessing various feats of piety among believers; Lateran 1179, which prohibited admission to monasteries for monetary contributions and ordered strict discipline to be observed when accepting former renegades into the church; Lateran of 1215, which established: against the Albigenses the doctrine of the transubstantiation of the Eucharistic gifts, against the Greeks and Waldenses the primacy of the Roman see and commanded: a) all believers at least once a year to make secret confession before confessors and b) venerate relics recognized as such by the Roman bishops; Lyon in 1245, who condemned Frederick II and thus established the superiority of papal power over secular power; Lyons 1274, which approved the Latin doctrine of the origin of St. the Spirit and from the Son; Vienna in 1311, which established the true teaching about the Face of Jesus Christ and about the actions of the sacrament of baptism against various kinds of spiritualistic sects; Constance 1414–1418, who condemned the errors of Viclef and Huss and approved the communion of St. secrets under one guise; Florence in 1439, which approved the union with the Greek Church; Lateran 1512–1517, which established the superiority of papal power over the power of councils. 4c) In addition to conciliar definitions, numerous “cathedral” [ex cathedra] decisions of popes, which found expression in bulls, also acquired symbolic significance in the Roman Catholic Church due to the resolution of the Vatican Council of 1870. Of these, the most important bulls can be considered: 1) Boniface VII Unam Sanctam of 1302, which asserts the superiority of spiritual power over secular power; II) Pius II Execgabilis of 1459, which prohibited appeals to ecumenical councils from decisions of Roman bishops; III) Leo X Apostolici Regimins of 1513, which condemns the delusion of the neo-Aristotelians that the human soul is mortal: IV) Leo X Pastor aeternus of 1516, which condemns the “pragmatic sanctions” that established the independence of the French Church from the papal throne; V) Leo X Exurge Domine of 1529, which condemned 41 errors of Luther; VI) Clement XI Constitutio Unigenitus Dei Filins of 1713, which condemned the doctrine of the relationship of grace to the free forces of man by Paschasius Quesnel; VII) Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus of 1854, which approved the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy. Virgin Mary; VIII) Pius IX Encyklica Quanta cura with Syllabus errorum of 1864, condemning 80 provisions of the modern movement of thought and life. 5a) Of the secondary documents that have symbolic meaning in the Roman Catholic Church, the most important is, first of all, the Missale Romanum, which contains the order of the liturgy and is divided into several parts according to the various conditions for the celebration of the latter: I) Propriuni missarum de tempore, i.e. the order of celebrating Mass on ordinary Sundays and holidays; II) Proprium missarum de sanctis, i.e. the rite of celebrating Mass on moving feasts in honor of saints; III) Commune Sanctorum, that is, the rite of celebrating the Mass in honor of those saints for whom there are no special Masses; IV) Missae votivae, that is, the rite of celebrating the Mass for the dead. In its origin, the Missale Romanum is nothing more than a modification of the Missale Gregorianum, which rite, having supplanted all the rites of the Mass that existed before it, was reworked in 1280 by the general of the Franciscan Order, Gaimo. The Council of Trent, however, found it necessary to revise the indicated order, in the 25th session instructing Pope Pius V to do this. The latter, in turn, on July 14, 1570, transferred the execution of this assignment to a special commission, the work of which was then revised by two more commissions: under Clement VIII in 1604. and Urban VIII in 1634. The last review of all these works was entrusted to the special commission Congregatio rituum by Sixtus V in 1687. The symbolic meaning of the Missale Romanum is determined, firstly, by the fact that its compilation and publication are based on the authoritative command of the Council of Trent, recognized in the West as ecumenical; 2, by the universal prevalence of the Missale Romanum in the Western Church and, 3, by the fact that the teaching contained in the Missale Romanum, in some points, was even included in the Catechismus Romanus. 5b). The Breviarium Romanum (“Roman missal”) should be placed in close connection with the Missale Romanum, which was based on the prayer book used in the Roman Church, which was a short collection of prayers, readings from the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures, speeches and hymns that the clergy said every day in addition to the Mass at certain hours (horae). The first edition of such a short prayer book with the name Breviarium belongs to Pope Gregory VII and dates back to 1074. Pope Pius V ordered that this prayer book of Gregory VII be supplemented and revised, and in 1568 he promulgated this improved edition with the bull “Quod a nobis”... New and improved editions of the Missal were then made by the popes: Clement VIII through the bull “Cum in ecclesias” of 1602 and Urban VIII through the bull “Divinum Psalmodiam” of 1631. Due to the fact that even these editions of the Breviarium Romanum contain a lot of legendary stuff, Benedict XIV wanted to make a new revision and formed a special commission for this, but its work stopped after the death of this pope and has not yet been made public. 5c) And finally, the following has a symbolic meaning in the Roman Catholic Church: Ritual Romanum, which contains the order of performing the sacraments and some private services. This document was based on individual liturgical rites used in various Western churches, in particular and especially the rite of episcopal consecrations, published by Clement VIII in 1596 under the title: “Pontificate Romanum” and then repeated in 1600 under the title: “Ceremoniale episcoporum”. In its present form, “Rituale Romanum” was published in 1614 by Pope Paul V on the basis of the definitions of the Council of Trent. This catechism is divided into three parts: 1) on faith, which sets out the doctrine of the Roman Church, with the Apostolic Symbol as the basis; 2) about hope, which states: “Our Father”..., and Ave Maria; 3) about love, where the Decalogue and the so-called five church prayers are expounded. It reads “si quis dixerit romanum pontificem habere tantummode officium inspectionis vel derectionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in universam ecclesiam; aut hanc ejus po testatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam in omnes ac singulas ecclesias: anathema sit.”