Anonymous notes on a series of doubts, [1674]


Anonymous notes on a series of doubts, [1674]


Scottish colleges


Anonymous notes on a series of questions: a) whether it is allowed for a priest to marry a Catholic with a heretic to prevent fornication, considering the two have already been married by a heretic priest and share a house and bed. When there is a difference in religion usually missionaries are not allowed to marry the couple. Therefore no dispensation is given. Besides, the fact that there are many heretics living in the same place under a ruler of a different religion does not change the practice in Germany, England, and Scotland; b) it is not forbidden for Catholics to let a heretic priest collaborate in a wedding. If there is a risk of persecution they are allowed to be married in this manner, to prevent a scandal; c) the Catholic priest is not requested to write a testimony, because this is not necessary for the health of the marriage, and thus he should not risk his life; d) children of married heretics born before the conversion of their parents (who later received dispensation), are legitimate and not irregular; e) heretics who accepted the true religion are irregular, as are their children, and both need dispensation; f) there is a special decree from 28 November 1668 that gives dispensation to the studens of the Scottish Colleges; g) a marriage between two Catholics performed by a heretic priest (despite what was said at the council), is valid. Since the bishops have been forced to leave the country, the decree of the Congregation of the Holy Office on the subject of the Christians in Malavari, is to be enforced; h) it is not allowed to let children be baptized by a heretic priest. A PF decree says that it is not a sin; however, such a baptism is not valid when there is the possibility to baptize the children in a Catholic parish; i) children should always be baptized in case they die before reaching maturity; j) the access to heretic schools is very dangerous for boys. That is why, on 5 December 1668, the Congregation of the Holy Office decided that they should not be sent to these schools; k) the appointment of heretics to benefices according to Jus Patronatus is not valid, because heretics are not allowed to hold benefices. However, in order to not lose this right, the appointment of heretics will be tolerated; l) it is not necessary to have the Catholics restore the vestments of the churches. However, it would be a laudable thing to do, as it would restore the hope in the return of Catholicism in Scotland; m) the selling and buying of certain goods to/from non-believers is allowed for Catholics, but only if the purchase involves goods that used to belong to the church, which will be then returned to the church; and n) Catholics do not sin by paying the [heretic] tithe, considering that they are forced to do so.
Additional comments
This document seems to be written by one person, as it uses the first person singular, but it is not known to us by whom. There are two versions of this document in this CP; the other is to be found on page 203r-206r. Beside some abbreviations, there are not many differences between the two. This version has the title "Super Dubijs," while the title is missing in the other. Other differences include: - "Parocho" in this version (f. 198r) is rendered in the other version as "Paroco" (f. 202r) or "Parochus" underlined (f. 203r); - "poenitentes" in this version (f. 198v) is rendered in the other version as "pęnitentes" (202v).


APF CP 23, 197r-200r




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


Original; unsigned










“Anonymous notes on a series of doubts, [1674],” Early Modern Documents: Sources and Resources for Historical Research, accessed October 4, 2022,

Social Bookmarking