Respons to a serie of doubts, [1674]


Respons to a serie of doubts, [1674]


Non-Catholic Christians
Scottish colleges


Response to a series of doubts; a) a missionary can legally conclude a marriage when there is either a risk of persecution, or whether it is needed to evade a scandal; b) the matrimony will only be valid when they first appear before a priest and two other people, before being married by a heretic priest. The marriage concluded in front of the heretic priest is not sacramental, but is merely a civic procedure; c) the Catholic priest involved should not give the spouses a testimonial letter, as he may risk gis life by doing so. This is also not necessary for the validity of the marriage; d) in a marriage in which the spouses received apostolic dispensation, the children are consequently legal; e) heretics who convert are probably irregular, and this is also ackowledged by law for their children as well. It is necessary therefore to let the missionaries give faculties; f) The congregations should add their own opinion on the matter; g) a marriage of two Catholics concluded by a heretic priest is probably valid, as decided by the council of Trent. They do have to conclude the marriage before a Catholic priest as well, but when this is not possible, it is not obligatory; h) if there is a real imminent danger, and if they are sure that the Catholics use the right procedure and requisites, it is not sin to allow children to be baptized by heretic priests, as everyone is allowed to babtize; i) Catholic priests can, and should baptize children born from fornication or adultry. Otherwise there will be the danger that the child will die before adulthood. It will also only bring advantage to the heretics; j) the parents of children who are forced to go to the schools of the heretics, are not able to do something about this, because because that would result in the persecution of the children; k) it could be a sin for those who are (according to the Jus Patronato) allowed to select people for benefices, and elect a heretic; l) those who once kept the fabrics of the priests should replace them, in case the country becomes Catholic again; m) there have previously been questions about whether Catholics can buy goods that once belonged to the church. PF allowed this with the condition that the goods were restituted to the church; and n) the catholics do not sin by paying the tenth or other taxes, because they have no way to be exempted from them. If they would see a way to be exempted from paying these taxes, it would be the right thing to do.
Additional comments
This document consists of different parts, one of them is a series of doubts. Within this CP, there is a second copy of this list, practically identical to the first one, found on f. 233r-234v. While this one is part of a bigger document the other one has a title: "Dubij Venuti da un Regno infetto d’Heresia, che ui domina" (f. 223r). Besides differences in abbreviations and spelling, there are other varieties as well: this one says: "se sia permesso à i missionarij" (f. 195r), while the other one has "se sia p’messo a missionarij," (f. 233r). This one reads: "Se gl’Eretici, che in Scotia per l’eresia/ non sono infami," (f. 195r), the other one "Se li Heretici, che nel regno, del quale si par/ la p’ l’Heresia non sono infami," (f. 233v-234r). This one has "ne Collegij Scozzesi oltrama/rini" (f. 233v), where the other one has "ne Collegij nationali," (f. 233v). This one says "la S. Sede {non} sia con/sapeuole di questo. Si domanda," (f. 195v), where the other one says "la S. Sede Ap’ca non sia consapeuole di/ questo, onde si domanda," (f. 233v). This one says "e quando ne habbiano bisogno, si/ supplica per essa a fauore degl’Alunni del/ Collegio di Parigi, e delli sacerdoti già pro/mossi senta dispensa tale à gl’ordini sacri," (f. 196r) while it is missing in the other one. In this one there is written: "raccon/tando gl’Istorici Inglesi, che il Consilio di/ Trento fù riceuuto dalli Vescoui Catt’ci in un/ Sinodo tenuto in Edimburgo," (f. 196r), while in the other one there is: "raccon/tando gl’Historici del Regno, del quale si/ parla, che il Concilio di Trenot fù riceuuto/ dalli Vescoui Catt’ci di poi scacciati," (f. 233v). This one has "Se li Catt’ci in Scotia pecchino con permet/tere che li loro figlioli siano battezzati/ dagl’Eretici, acciò che essi non siano mo/lestati da i Predicanti," (f. 196r), while in the other one there is "Se i Cattolici nel regno sud’o infetto tutto d’/Heresia, che ui domina, pecchino con p’mettere/ che i loro figloli siano battezzati dalli Heretici/ accioche essi non siano molestati da/ Predicanti, e magistrati eretici," (f. 233v). This one reads: "Se i Catt’ci di Scotia, li quali non possono," (f. 196v), where in the other one its: "Se i Catt’ci del regno, del quale si parla, li/ quali non possono," (f. 234r). This one has "Se quelli, che hanno il jus patronato di nomi/nare à Benefitij," (f. 196v), the other one "Se quelli che hanno al antiquo in tempo de/ Catt’ci il Jus Patronato di nominare a/ Benefitij," (f. 234v).




APF CP 23, 232r-v




These 14 doubts have earlier been adressed in the CP in a report on the mission in Scotland, see: APF CP 23, 176r-196v (database item 809).


original; unsigned










[PF], “Respons to a serie of doubts, [1674],” Early Modern Documents: Sources and Resources for Historical Research, accessed May 30, 2023,