Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/259

 RUBRUCK

217

RUBRUCK

books with which they dealt. The S. C. of Rites, instituted by Sixtus V in 1587, is commissioned to approve new rites, to suppress abuses in Hturgical matters, issue authentic editions of liturgical books, to interpret the rubrics, and to solve difficulties con- nected therewith. Besides this interpreting authority, individual liturgists may also write commentaries and explanations on the subject.

IV. Obligatory Character. — In describing the kinds of rubrics we have intentionally omitted mention of distinctions which seem to us without sufficient foundation. Writers distinguish between Divine and human rubrics, but as soon as rubrics are ap- proved by the sovereign pontiff and promulgated in his name it seems to us that they emanate from a Divine-human authority, and none save the Church has the right to establish such rules. According to a prevalent sentiment, we should do away with the distinction between the preceptive rubrics (those which bind under pain of sin, mortal or venial ac- cording to the matter) and directive rubrics (those which are not binding in themselves, but state what is to be done in the form of an instruction or counsel).

It may be said that the rubrics of the liturgical books are real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority — the sovereign ])onlifT — and considering the terms in which they are promulgated it does not appear that the supreme head of the Church merely desires to give a counsel. Hence the dis- tinction between the prfKjeptive and directive rubrics is (a) in contradiction to the terms of the definition of rubrics, which are rules, consequently ordinances, laws, whose character is to be at once both directive and preceptive, i. e. to impose an obligation: (b) it is contrary to the mind of the sovereign pontiffs as expressed in their Bulls, which in establishing and promulgating rubrics intend to make them real laws. Pius V in the Bull "Quod a nobis", for the publica- tion of the Roman Breviary (1.508), expressed him- self as follows: "Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo unquam tempore, vel totum vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse". The same pope uses similar terms in the Bull "Quo primum tempore", for the publication of the Roman Missal (1870): "Mandantes, ac districte . . . praecipientes ut cocteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis IMissalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis ac plane reject is, Missam ju.xta ritum, modum ac normam quie per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur decantent ac legant, neque in Mis.sa; celebratione alias cajremonias, vel preces quam qua? hoc Missali continentur addere vel recitare praesumant". No less explicit are the expressions employed by Paul V for the pubhcation of the Ritual (Brief "Apostolica; Sedi", 1614), by Clement VIII for the publication of the Pontifical (Brief "Ex quo in Ecclesia", 1596), etc.; (c) this distinction is equally contrary to the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which constitute a real command, while it cannot be said that they involve a greater obligation than the rubrics which they exTDlain, which would be the case if the rubrics were not preceptive, when the commentary would have greater force than the text itself, (d) It is contrary to the rubricists' manner of expressing themselves. Thus Bissus declares that the rubrics are laws: "Leges tam Missalis quam Breviarii dicuntur Rubricse, cum legibus et aliis ordinationibus et Solent esse firmse donee revocentur". De Herdt is still more ex-plicit: "Rubrics sunt reguLT juxta quas officium divinum persolvi, I\Iissa> sacrificum celebrari, et sacramenta administrari debent."

It is true that many others admit the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics, as De Herdt does, but they write from the standpoint of

conscience, and when they excuse infractions of the rule it is in virtue of special reasons due to circum- stances. It is also objected that certain rubrics are marked "Ad libitum", e. g. the third Collect of the Mass for certain days, the optional recitation of the "Dies Irae" in low unprivileged Masses for the dead. But even in these cases there is a certain prescription: a third prayer must be said, which is left to the choice of the celebrant; half of the "Dies Irae" may not be said, but it must either be omitted or said entire. Rubrical indications whose obligatory character is completely lacking, such as the prayers in preparation for Mass, "pro opportunitate sacerdotis facienda", are exceptional instances, the very terms of which show what is to be understood, but these exceptions merely confirm the thesis. To make them the start- ing-point in establishing a distinction is merely to multiply distinctions at wall, a procedure that is all the more useless because it would eventually amount to saying that there are preceptive precepts and non-preceptive precepts. We can only conclude that the distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics should be done away with, or if it be mentioned at all, it should be simply as an historical reference (see Ephemerides Liturgicae, I, 146). Under certain circumstances rubrics may be modified by custom, but in this respect they do not differ from laws in general.

Gavanti, Thesaurus sacr. rit. cum atldit. Merati (Venice, 1769); De Herdt, Sac. liturg. praxis (Louvain, 1863); Menghini, Elem. juris liturg. (Rome, 1907) ; Van der Stappen, Sac. liturg. cursus (Mechlin, 1898); Zaccaria, Bib. ritual. (Rome, 1778); Onomasticon (Fraenza, 1787).

F. Cabrol.

Rubruck, William (also called William of Ru- bruck and less correctly Ruysbrock, Ruysbroek, and Rubruquis), Franciscan missionary and writer of travels; b. at Rubrouc in northern France probably about 1200; d. after 1256. He became closely con- nected with St. Louis (Louis IX) in Paris, accom- panied him on his crusade, and was at Acre and Trip- oli. Louis, notwithstanding his repeated ill-success, again formed the plan of converting the Tatars to Christianity, and at the same time of winning them as confederates against the Saracens. Consequently at his orders Rubruck undertook an extended mission- ar>' journey, going first to visit Sartach, son of Batu and ruler of Kiptchak, then reported to have become a Christian. In 1253 Rubruck started from Constan- tinople, crossed the Black Sea, traversed the Crimea towards the North, and then continued eastward; nine days after crossing the Don he met the khan. The latter was not inclined to agree to the schemes of St. Louis and sent the ambassadors to his father Batu, living near the Volga. Batu would not embrace Christianity and advised the envoys to visit the great Khan Mangu. In midwinter they reached the eastern point of Lake Alakul, south of Lake Balkasch, and near this the Court of the khan, with which they arrived at Karakorum at Easter, 1254. After residing for some time in this city they had to return home without having obtained anything. On the return journey they took a somewhat more northerly route and arrived in the spring of 1255 by way of Asia Minor at Cyprus, whence they proceeded to Tripoli.

The report of the journey which Rubruck presented to the king is a geographical masterpiece of the Middle Ages. It exceeds all earlier treatises in matter, power of observation, keenness of grasp, and clearness of presentment, besides being but little spoiled by fabulous narratives. In it Rubruck gives a clear account of the condition of China, of the character- istics and technical skill of its inhabitants, of their peculiar wTiting, and of the manufacture of silk; he also mentions paper money, printing, the cUvision into castes, rice brandy, kumiss, speaks of the physicians who diagnosed diseases by the pulse, and prescribed