Abstract
The relics of the Catacomb Saint Urban, which are preserved in Monok, Hungary, were falsely identified as the mortal remains of Pope Urban I in 1983. Spreading of the Pope's patronage of preserving the grapes from the spring frost damage led to the development of his new local cult.
The study deals with this misidentification and its consequences, with the circumstances of the baroque reliquary's arrival to the village in 1771, with its procurer and the real reason of the purchase, finally with its translatio to the Holy Cross altar in the chapel located in the Andrássy Castle.
The concept of cultural heritage, however much it may be defined by our previous knowledge, by the surviving buildings, artefacts, texts or even social phenomena, is constantly changing. There are different traditions associated with them, whose preservation, presentation and transmission is also a priority; the value they represent could be important for the identity of a society as a whole or rather of a local community. This is the case with the reliquary of Monok, and the sacral and communal events associated with it. The built heritage of this village, located approximately 30 km from Tokaj, is significant. Among others is the Andrássy Castle, which was built in the middle of the 18th century and rebuilt by Henrik Koch, later by the well-known architect Miklós Ybl.1 The one-storey castle with its cour d'honneur became abandoned at the latest by the end of the 19th century; its owner, Dénes Andrássy donated it to the Hungarian Children's Rescue League in 1908. It had functioned as a primary school since 1918, nowadays it is uninhabited. The reliquary of Saint Urban, which has recently become quite famous, was exhibited in the chapel of this castle.
András Szikora's essay from 1983 was the first which dealt with the alleged reliquary of Pope Saint Urban I in Monok.2 According to the author, the baroque reliquary, which contains a whole skeleton, was moved to the Andrássy Castle in Monok in 1771, thanks to the incumbent Pope, who – as the aged local people mentioned it to the author – gave it to Count István Andrássy to preserve the grapes from the spring frost damage, after he had tasted and enjoyed the famous aszú of Tokaj.3 This story, which was mentioned in connection with the patronage, was later presented as a fact.4 The identification of the relic with the skeleton of Pope Urban I is due to Szikora's essay, which later authors adopted it, however, the authenticity of this predication has not been verified yet. András Szikora also mentioned that the presence of the reliquary of Pope Urban in Monok is very important from the point of view of its touristic potential. Zoltán Bihari and Krisztina Somogyi also dealt with this topic emphasising that the veneration and awareness of the Urban-relic generate excellent touristical opportunities in Tokaj-Hegyalja.5 Finally, the veneration of the relic, which was specifically identified as the skeleton of Pope Urban I skeleton, really spread in the county. The ethnographer Tivadar Petercsák had already announced in his study edited in 2018 that the veneration of Pope Urban I is unequivocally visible and well-documented in the region: thanks to the patronage of local vine-growing companies, social organisations, municipalities and individuals, Urban's real veneration has been established in connection with the reliquary.6 A pilgrimage is organised every year, and though it was made into a travel-size reliquary to help show the praesentia of the saint to the believers, there are a lot of pieces of art both in Monok and around the wine region that depict him.7 This identification has become common knowledge; it can be read in the official Hungarian Catholic lexicon that this reliquary belongs to Pope Saint Urban I and it was given as a gift to Count István Andrássy by Pope Clement XIV, obviously to protect the vines.8
The reliquary, its authenticum and about the questions of identification
The reliquary was made in baroque style, it is made of gilded wood from the outside and is blue-painted inside (see Plate 1). The skull was decorated with colourful paper and textile flowers around the head, other bigger bones were inserted in it. We have no information whether the skeleton had been decorated in Rome or it happened only later, en route or in Hungary. Its current condition does not follow the original appearance; it can be clearly seen in the photograph taken in 1987, when the reliquary was temporarily exhibited in Eger.9 There are not any texts, decorations or other details that refer to the Pope: there is a Christogram on the top of the reliquary and in the bottom centre an inscription that identifies the relics as “S. Urbani Martyris.”
The reliquary of Sanctus Urbanus martyr. Photo by Robert Nemes
Citation: Hungarian Studies 38, S; 10.1556/044.2024.00278
According to its authenticum, which was the official document or deed of authentication, the reliquary was transferred from Rome to Monok in 1771 into the chapel of the Andrássy castle, and from there it was moved to the parish church of the village after the communist takeover in the middle of the 20th century, where it was stored in the crypt. Because of its deterioration it was relocated to the inner place of the church, where it still was visible in 2018.10
In order for a skeleton to be considered a relic, its authenticity had to be well documented. Fortunately, the official authenticum of this relic has survived: it was dated on March 18, 1771, during the pontificate of Clement XIV, and signed by his general vicar (vicarius generalis), Cardinal Marcantonio Colonna (See Plate 2).11
The authenticum of the reliquary. Photo by Robert Nemes
Citation: Hungarian Studies 38, S; 10.1556/044.2024.00278
The deed authenticating the relic was specifically used in cases when the martyrs were exhumed from catacombs. It is a pre-printed formula with handwritten details for unique identifications, and was used after the 1650s; such documents were absolutely handwritten before this date.12 It included details such as, for example: to whom the relic was given, whose relic, what type of relic (in this case, the complete skeleton), with what kind of attachment (here the glass jar containing its blood), from which cemetery (meaning catacombs in all cases), in what kind of packaging, how it was prepared and decorated (in this case, with a red silk ribbon to indicate the fact of martyrdom), to whom the relic was donated (because the donated person and the applicant were not always the same), the issuer of the document and the place and date of issuing it. Exactly the same words appear in the deed, which authenticated the skeleton of Saint Fortunatus of Mileto in 177613 and in the document which belongs to the skeleton of Saint Felix of Erlinsbach from 1777,14 but the formula remained essentially unchanged even in the first half of the 19th century.
Although the veneration of Pope Urban I became increasingly important in the region, there are three important details in the authenticum that rule out the possibility that the relics of this Pope were brought to Monok. The first one is a kind of argumentum ex silentio: the authenticum does not mention the supposed title of the martyr, which would have been unthinkable if it had been a papal relic. Secondly, according to the authenticum, the skeleton was newly excavated from the Priscilla catacombs by order of Clement XIV,15 however, it is well-known that Saint Urban's body never rested there.16 It was moved to the monastery of the Benedictine nuns in Erstein, located in Alsace, in the middle of the 9th century, and later it was lost, but according to the contemporary chronicle of Albertus Argentinensis, it was transferred to Bohemia in 1353 by the order of Charles IV Holy Roman Emperor.17
The third – and most important – is the decree of the Congregation of Sacred Rites18 on August 11, 1691, which is referred to in the authenticum: it was permitted that the Urban relic get public veneration, but without officium or Holy Mass. This part of the text is actually a key, which features as standard in the authenticums of the Catacomb saints, who had fictive names.19 This mentioned Decretum generale exactly ruled that people who were not listed in the Martyrologium Romanum because of their uncertain or incomplete biographical data could not be honoured as saints.20 Before and after this decree the text of these deeds was fairly similar; the only important detail that has changed is the clause that refers to the aggravation.21 This decree clearly implies that the skeleton belongs to a martyr whose name is not included in the Martyrologium Romanum. Pope Urban I was included in this calendar before and after the calendar reform as well;22 it means that his memorial day (May 25) was universally and obligatorily celebrated in the Church, with the method prescribed in the liturgical books, called cultus liturgicus. On the other hand, the public veneration or cultus publicus, while within limits, covered much more martyrs, even saints exhumed from the catacombs and who had fictive names, but (in accordance with the ever-tightening canonical restrictions) without the privileges accorded to saints listed in the Martyrologium Romanum, including Pope Saint Urban I.
This decree was intended to confirm the authenticity of the saints' (including Catacomb saints') status and was the result of a long process of establishing them. The Congregation of Sacred Rites and Ceremonies (Congregatio pro Sacri Ritibus et Caeremoniis) was established with the bull Immensa aeterni Dei by Pope Sixtus V in 1588. One of the most important functions of this was to examine the biography, miracles and the whole sanctity of the person to be beatified or canonized. Of course, in the case of the Catacomb saints, we cannot speak about either authentic biography or prompt knowledge about their sanctity. In 1634, Pope Urban VIII, in his decree called Coelestis Hierusalem, forbade the veneration of persons who were not approved by the Holy See: they could not be called saints or blessed, neither altar nor church could be consecrated to them, it was forbidden to say mass in their honour, etc. It was also regulated that persons whose veneration had already existed for more than a hundred years, i.e. for at least a hundred years before the decree was issued, and who had been venerated continuously could still be venerated, but within limits.23 The status of the Catacomb saints was partly different, although there were also increasingly restrictive trends with regard to them. After the rediscovery of the catacombs in Rome in 1578, the exhumation of the bodies resting there used to be carried out under poorly regulated conditions. In order to centralise the distribution of these relics, Pope Clement IX founded the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics (Congregatio indulgentarum et sacrarum reliquiarum) in 1667, with the aim of remediating abuses and ensuring authenticity in relation to the Catacomb saints. Catacomb saints were particularly affected by the provision, because after the exhumation many skeletons were verified as martyrs and saints – just one example: according to Urs Amacher, more than 150 Catacomb saints were translocated to the diocese of Constance alone until the middle of the 19th century.24
The bishop of Rome, actually the pope, was responsible for verifying, preserving and donating the relics of real or supposed martyrs that were found in the catacombs in and around Rome, but he delegated this responsibility to his general vicar, who in this case was Marcantonio Colonna. The request had to be made in the first instance to the vicarius generalis or to his deputies. The request could also be sent directly to the pope, in that case the papal sacristan (Monsignore Sagrista) would handle the case.25 After the bones were packed and sealed, the authenticum was filled in and, on behalf of the vicar, the Custodian of the Sacred Relics (Custos Sacrarum Reliquiarum et Sacrorum Coemeteriorum) released them to the transporter. At the destination, the local bishop or his delegate checked the validity of the relics and the packaging.26 The second or diocesan acknowledgement of the authenticity of the relic required priority to the ceremony,27 in this case it was not made by the bishop of Eger, but by his delegate, József Náray, dean of Tokaj-Hegyalja; it was also signed by the bishop, but only on May 19, 1772, after the translation of the relics.28
It was very important to the Church to verify the veneration of the Catacomb saints. In order to do so, after discovery the first step was field examination: if the undeniable signs of the martyrdom were found in or next to the tomb (the vase or jar, which – according to tradition – contained the blood of the martyr,29 different inscriptions in connection with the cause of the violent death, for example the carved palm branch) the person was identified as a martyr, therefore she or he was entitled to the title of saint and to communal veneration, but not to liturgical veneration. During the verification process, the martyr was given a new name, if it was unknown or rather, whose name was known only by God,30 there were fictive – but quite descriptive – names, like Felicissima, Italica, Maxima, Martyria, Fortunatus, Felix – or, as it will be seen later, not too rarely Urbanus.31 This naming process – of whose authenticity, it must be stressed, the believers were aware – was commonly well-known, but occasionally the later devotional practices obscured this collective knowledge; it was also naturally made acceptable by the desire to invoke the martyr and it was also necessary in the devotional practices. This was the most important reason for giving fictive names, but on the other hand it was sometimes directly generated by various outstanding features or just by the direct connection with the applicant; as for example Philippe Boutry mentioned it, the captain of the Hungarian Radeczky-regiment asked the papal sacristan for a Catacomb saint with the name of Victor or Victoria, or the priest of the prison of Bordeaux asked for another martyr, Saint Crescentius instead of Saint Patientia, because the term ‘thriving’ better suits prisoners than the word ‘patience.’32 All in all: the Catacomb saints typically did not have a specific patronage and their cult remained mostly local; this was the case in Monok as well, at least until András Szikora's essay was published.
Consecration of the chapel in the Andrássy castle in Monok
The consecration of the newly built chapel in the Andrássy castle in Monok was celebrated in 1771;33 the translation of the Urban-relics (translatio reliquiae)34 happened at the same time. It means that the relic was transferred to the place of worship accompanied by a grand procession; it was put on the tabernaculum-part of the altar, directly under the Crucifix still visible today.35 Regarding this ceremony the sermon of the Pauline monk Tádé Aszalay36 was published in the same year in Buda (See Plate 3).37 There are a lot of important details in this sermon regarding the question of whether the reliquary contains Urban's skeleton or not.
Cover page of Tádé Aszalay's Salus hodie facta. Photo by ELTE University Library
Citation: Hungarian Studies 38, S; 10.1556/044.2024.00278
Although Aszalay did not mention that the local Bishop Károly Eszterházy could have been in Monok because of the consecration of the chapel or the translation of the Urban-relic, thanks to his correspondences we know that after the papal permission to move the reliquary to Monok, with the help of his permanent mediator agent named Giorgio Merenda,38 Eszterházy obtained the whole skeletons of Saint Simplicius and Saint Innocentius (both are Catacomb saints) from Rome between June 29, 1771 and April 25, 1772, which were transferred to the altarpieces of the saint Hungarian kings, Stephan and Ladislaus, in the baroque main church of Eger.39 The bishop also brought more minor relics (the bones of Saint Andrew the Apostle and Saint Charles Borromeo, a cloth soaked with the blood of Saint Cecilia, the skull of Saint Valerius, finally the blood and hair of Saint Maximus) to the diocese at his own request, but he seems to have had nothing to do with the acquisition of the Urban relic.
Aszalay did not mention that the martyr would have been a pope and did not speak about his life, career or later veneration,40 however, the pope's biography is well-known. On the other hand, the date of these ceremonies is also a fact that speaks for itself: it was dated October 15, the feast day of Saint Theresa, the patron saint of István Andrássy's first wife, Terézia Dőry, however, as I earlier mentioned, the feast day of Saint Urban I was commonly, universally and obligatorily celebrated. The previous authors have agreed that Monok did not become a shrine; we do not have any information that celebrations or Holy Masses were later organised in connection with the relic on May 25. The chapel of this castle, in which the reliquary was placed, is dedicated to the Holy Cross, was painted according to a chronostichon in 1770. The theme of these contemporary frescoes of Ferenc Lieb make no reference whatsoever to Saint Urban; they depict the scene of Christ's Rescurrection and the four Evangelists on the ceiling, and the personifications of the three theological virtues (Fides, Spes, Caritas) on the wall.41
It is also interesting what the patronage of Saint Urban was according to the sermon: he was not mentioned as a preserver of the grapes against spring frost damage; his patronage connected principally and suggestively to the Andrássy family: his mission was to intercede with God for the reason of keeping the family in the bloodline; it was presented as the couple's own prayer.42 Their son, Miklós Andrássy, born in 1761, was personally mentioned in this sermon: the parents had wanted to preserve his life, but finally he died young. Yet, after all, Saint Urban helped the family, because after Terézia Dőry had died in 1788, István Andrássy married again: Mária Festetics, who bore him a boy, György Andrássy, who had an exceptional official and academical career and survived them.
Who actually Urban, martyr of Monok was?
We know about more Saint Urbans, who are the protectors of grapes, because, according to their biographies, they are able to prevent damage caused by weather. Urban of Langres, bishop of this city, lived in the 4th century; Urban of Heilbronn was a priest and pupil of St. Gall, who lived in the 7th century; the cult of these Urbans had been merged completely over time. The question of which Urban is honoured depends mostly on the wine region. But not only Urban's cult can be originated from several formerly, mostly locally venerated saints, it is enough to mention Saint Valentine. The names of Saint Valentine of Rome, a sacrificial priest, and Saint Valentine, Bishop of Terni (both martyrs) are known; their veneration and patronage were also merged over time. But we do not have to necessarily choose between these three known Saint Urbans – we could not anyway, as none of his relics are preserved in Monok.
As I have mentioned earlier, it was a common phenomenon in the case of Catacomb saints to give fictive names to the anonymous martyrs. To give an idea of the scale of this, I mention Philippe Boutry's register of Catacomb saints, who were brought to France between 1801 and 1850, which shows that five martyrs were named Urbanus and one was Urbana (for example, nine of them were named Saint Felix).43 It would be worth examining whether, as it happened in Monok, the believers also linked the person of these Urbans to the role of Pope Saint Urban I in protecting from weather and preventing frost damage. The question is also important because there are clear indications of this in the case of Saint Urbana of Marboz, which Boutry discussed in detail. Boutry cited a prayer to Saint Urbana, in which the martyr was mentioned as preventer against weather damage.44
These Catacomb saints – like Urban of Monok – typically became patrons of a family or community (settlement, higher education institution, monastery, etc.); their praesentia provided one of the most personal points of contact with God. Thus, Felix became Saint Felix Minor in Homokkomárom, also in Hungary,45 the martyr Urban became Pope Saint Urban I; in many cases, believers identified the martyrs beyond the constraints of the authenticum (in our case, because they could no longer decode the strictures it contained). Moreover, in the case of Urban, the biographical information that could be taken into account was not only the fact of martyrdom, accepted by tradition, but a complete life story, verifiable by historical data, could be attributed to the relic. I stress that this was not in the 18th or 19th century, but after 1983. There is nothing new under the sun, because the modifications of devotion followed essentially the same pattern in the case of the Urban relic in Monok as with the other Urbans (above all, Urban of Langres and Heilbronn) and Saint Urbana, since they all became – with the help of the name transfer – local vine and weather patron saints.
References
Amacher, U. (2017). „Wir haben dem Pater Elektus den heiligen Leib des römischen Märtyrers Felix zum Geschenk gemacht.” Die als Authentik bezeichnete Echtheitsurkunde für Katakombenheilige. Trastevere. Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 24: 170–178.
Antal, B. (2007). Eszterházy Károly és Róma. Archívum. A Heves Megyei Levéltár közleményei, 18: 21–54.
Aszalay, T. (s.a.). Salus hodie facta. Ma lött üdvösség. Azaz: A’ méltóságos monoki háznak kettős üdvössége ’s bóldogsága. özv. Landerer Katalin, Buda, ELTE University Library KNy-18-00478.
Bihari, Z. and Somogyi, K. (2013). Megtaláltuk Szent Orbánt. Szőlő-levél, 3: 11–12.
Bosio, A. (1650). Roma Sotterranea. Ludovico Grignani, Rome.
Boutry, P. (1979). Les saints des Catacombes. Itinéraires français d'une piété ultramontaine (1800–1881). Mélanges de l'École française de Rome, 91: 875–930, 876–880.
Boutry, P. (2016). Les corps saints des des catacombes. In: Baciocchi, S., and Duhamelle, C. (Eds.), Reliques romaines. Invention et circulation des corps saints des catacombes à l’époque moderne. École française de Rome, pp. 225–259.
Császár, E. (1901). A Pálos-rend feloszlatása. Második és befejező közlemény. Századok, 35: 412–429.
Diós, I. (2005). Magyar Katolikus Lexikon 10. Szent István Társulat, Budapest, pp. 137–l38.
Ducreux, M. (2016). „Propager la glorie des saints dans des provinces si fort éloignées de Rome.” L’expansion des reliques des catacombes en Europe centrale et orientale. In: Baciocchi, S. and Duhamelle, C. (Eds.), Reliques romaines. Invention et circulation des corps saints des catacombes à l’époque moderne. École française de Rome, pp. 287–370.
Gardellini, A. (1825). Decreta authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum, Tom. 3. Franciscus et Leopold Bourlié, Rome.
Jávor, A. (2019). Lieb Ferenc. Egy rokokó festő Felső-Magyarországon. Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Művészettörténeti Intézet, Budapest.
Knapp, É. and Tüskés, G. (1987). „Öltöztetve vagyon vörös bársonyba…” Feldíszített katakombaszent ereklyék. In: Studia Agriensia 7. Devóció és dekoráció. 18. és 19. századi kolostormunkák Magyarországon. Eger, pp. 25–44.
N. Kis, T. (2023). Egy szenttisztelet evolúciója. Nepomuki Szent János kultuszának kora újkori változásai és magyarországi sajátosságai. L’Harmattan and Tokaj-Hegyalja Egyetem, Budapest and Sárospatak.
Petercsák, T. (2018). Egy új szőlővédő szentkultusza Tokaj-Hegyalján. Szent Orbán tisztelete a 21. században. Ethnographia, 129: 183–197.
Ruyr, J. (1633). Recherches des sainctes antiquitez de la Vosge, divisée en trois parties. Espinal, Ambroise Ambroise.
Szikora, A. (1983). A májusi fagyok és az Orbán-kultusz. Agrártörténeti Szemle, 25: 89–94.
Taccone-Gallucci, D. (1882). Memorie storiche di Mileto in Calabria. Opuscoli religiosi, letterarj e morali, 4: 104–129.
Tüskés, G. and Knapp, É. (1982). Egy dunántúli búcsújáróhely a XVIII. században. A homokkomáromi mirákulumos könyv tanulságai 1751–1786. Ethnographia, 93: 269–291.
Tüskés, G. and Knapp, É. (1994). A katakombaszentek tisztelete. Fejezet a barokk kori szent- és ereklyekultusz történetéből. Századok, 128: 3–45.
Jávor (2019), 55.
Szikora (1983), 94.
It reduces the possibilities to make different annotations to the text, for lack of footnotes and references, and because of the mistakes and inaccuracies which can be found in it, for example, according to the author the giver was Pope Benedicte XIV instead of Clement XIV and the reliquary was transferred from Erstein to Monok instead of Rome. After all, its author was rather enthusiastic and imaginative than thorough and knowledgeable.
Petercsák (2018), 193–194.
Diós (2005), 137–138.
Judit Dombóvári, restorer at the Hungarian National Museum had changed the installation of the bones and ornaments at first in 2012, and it was also changed in 2022, when the restorers working at the Dobó István Castle Museum (Eger, Hungary) restored the reliquary again. About the original appearance see: Knapp and Tüskés (1987). Cat.Nr. 15.
Petercsák (2018), 189.
Its text: „Marcus Antonius Tituli Sanctae Mariae de Pace S[anctae] R[omanae] E[clesiae] Presbyter Cardinalis Columna, S[anctis]S[i]mi D[omini] N[ostri] Papae Vicarius Generalis, Romanaeque Curiae, ejusque Districtus Judex Ordinarius etc.
Universis, et singulis praesentes nostras litteras inspecturis fidem facimus, et attestamur, quod Nos ad majorem Omnipotentis Dei gloriam suorumque Sanctorum venerationem dono dedimus Ill[ustrissim]mo et ex[ce]ll[entissi]mo A[dolescenti] Comiti Stephano Andrassy Sacrum Corpus Sancti Christi Martyrys Urbani cum vaso vitreo sanguine resperso per Nos de mandato Sanctis[simi] D[omini] N[ostri] Papae ex Coemeterio Priscillae extractum quod in capsula, seu urna lignea deaurata, ceruleo colore picta, ac tabula crystallina in anteriori parte munita bene clausa, et funiculo serico coloris rubri colligata, ac sigillo nostro signata supradicto Ill[ustrissi]mo et ex[ce]ll[entissi]mo A[dolescenti] Comiti Stephano Andrassy concessimus, eidemque ut praedictum Sacrum Corpus S[ancti] Urbani M[artyris] apud se retinere, aliis donare, extra Urbem transmittere, et in quacunque Ecclesia, Oratorio, aut Capella publicae fidelium venerationi, exponere, et collocare valeat in Domino facultatem concessimus, absque tamen Officio, et Missa ad formam Decreti S[acrae] Congreg[ationis] Rituum edit[am] die 11. Augusti 1691.
In quorum fidem has litteras testimoniales manu nostra subscriptas, nostroque sigillo firmatas per infra scriptum Sacrar[ium] Reliquiarum Custodem, expediri mandavimus. Romae ex Aedibus nostris die 18 mensis Martii Anno 1771.” Published at first by Tivadar Petercsák, see Petercsák (2018), 190.
Amacher (2017), 174.
Taccone-Gallucci (1882), 115–116.
Pfarrarchiv Erlinsbach, Nr. 36. See Amacher (2017), 174–176.
„per Nos de mandato Sanctis[simi] D[omini] N[ostri] Papae ex Coemeterio Priscillae extractum.” See Petercsák (2018), 190.
Tivadar Petercsák also noticed this anomaly, but he believed that the text of the authenticum could not be doubted, so he did not investigate this problem in detail. Petercsák (2018), 189–192.
Ruyr (1633), 236.
After 1988 it is called Congregatio de Causis Sanctorum, which is one of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia.
Its text: 3097. „Decretum Generale. Cum S. R. C. innotuerit, quamplures abusus irrepsisse circa recitationem Officii, sub praetextu Decreti ab eadem Congregatione evulgati de anno 1630., (745.), et in Breviario Romano impressi, in quo permittitur posse in Ecclesia recitari Officia, et Missas celebrari de illis Sanctis, quorum Corpora, aut Reliquiae insignes in ea asservantur; Em[inentissim]i PP. eidem S. C. praepositi, eisdem abusibus evellendis Praecipue intenti, inhaerendo Decretis alias in similibus editis, declararunt: Praedicta Officia Sanctorum, ratione Corporis, seu insignis Reliquiae recitanda, intelligi debere de Sanctis dumtaxat in Martyrologio Romano descriptis, et dummodo constet de identitate Corporis, seu Reliquiae insignis illusmet Sancti, qui reperitur in Martyrologio Romano descriptus; de coeteris autem Sanctis in praedicto Martyrologio non descriptis, aut quibus a S. Sede non fuerit specialiter consessum, Officia recitari, et Missas celebrari vetuerunt, non obstante, quod ipsorum Corpora, vel insignes Reliquiae in Ecclesiis asserventur: quibus tamen ab Ordinariis locorum approbatis, debitam Fidelium venerationem (prout hactenus servatum est) exhibendam esse censuerunt, sed absque Officio, et Missa, sub poenis de non satisfaciendo praecepto recitandi Officium, aliisque in Constitutione B. Pii V. contentis. Die 11. Augusti 1691.” See Gardellini (1825), 184–185.
„absque tamen Officio, et Missa ad formam Decreti S[acrae] Congreg[ationis] Rituum edit[am] die 11. Augusti 1691” See Petercsák (2018), 190.
It can be read in the Martyrology of Usuard as well, for example: Molanus Joannes, Usuardi Martyrologium, quo romana ecclesia ac permultae aliae utuntur, Lovanii, Hieronymus Welle, 1568, p. N. After the calendar reform: Martyrologium Romanum, ad novam kalendarii rationem et Ecclesiasticae historiae veritatem restitutum, Romae, Dominicus Basa, 1583, 89.
N. Kis (2023), 162–163.
Amacher (2017), 170.
Amacher (2017), 171–172.
Boutry (1979), 875–930, 876–880; Amacher (2017), 172–173.
Transcription of this text: Petercsák (2018), 190.
Actually these jars served to store different aromatic plants; they were definitely observed by Antonio Bosio's well-known book called Roma Sotterranea, see: Bosio (1650), 285.
Boutry (1979), 881.
Boutry (1979); Tüskés and Knapp (1994), 7–8; Amacher (2017), 172.
Boutry (1979), 883; Boutry (2016), 255.
Aszalay (s.a.), 10.
Translatio reliquiae means that the relics were transferred to the place of worship and placed by the altar; about this process see in detail Tüskés and Knapp (1994), 10–11.
Aszalay (s.a.), 9.
He served as a teacher in Pápa in 1764; during the period of abolition of Joseph II Holy Roman Emperor he lived in the Pauline convent in Felsőgyőr, not far from Monok. Császár (1901), 417.
Antal (2007), 24.
Antal (2007), 37. The method of these translations served to raise the level of the altarpieces as well, see in detail: Ducreux (2016), 295.
For example Aszalay (s.a.), 9–10.
Jávor (2019), 59–61.
„Óh ditsöséges Szent Orbán Mártyr, a’ te bóldog Tetemeidhez-is alázatos fö-hajtással, buzgó könyörgéssel járúlok. Nyerd-ki azt a’ kegyelmet az Istentöl, hogy Miklos Fiam által terjedgyen-ki a’ Monoki Háznak ditsösége, és Férfiúi magva soha ne-szakadgyon. Erre a’ kévánatós kegyelemre láttatik, óh Szent Orbán Mártyr! Kristus Jésusban kérni Téged igaz, és hív tisztelöd Gróff Andrási István, és az ö kedves Házas Társa, Méltóságos Gróff Döry Theresia Aszszony különössen így könyörögven: Obsecro te pro meo Filio, quem genui. Kérlek Téged az én (Miklos) Fiamért, kit én szültem. Ezt kévánnyák néktek minnyájan a’ jelen-lévö Fö ’s-al Rendek, a’ kik itten Istennek ditsöségére, Orbán Mártyrnak tiszteletére, ’s Monoki Háznak felmagasztalására meg-jelentek kitsintül fogvást nagyig egy szívvel ’s lélekkel.” See Aszalay (s.a.), 11–12.
Boutry (1979), 925, 927–929.
Sainte Urbana de Marboz,
„Repousse loin de nos têtes
es malheurs et les fléaux;
Retire les vents, les tempêtes,
Bénis nos champs, nos travaux.” (1845). Mentioned by Boutry (1979), 903.
According to his legend Felix was the son of Saint Felicitas, who were killed with her other sons (Januarius, Philippus, Silvanus, Alexander, Vitalis, Martialis) in Rome, ca. 150 AD. See Tüskés and Knapp (1982), 273.
