REFRIGERIO

REFRIGERIO. – In Greek, ἀνάψυξις signifies refreshment, restoration, or a banquet. Among the Romans it appears as: refrigeratio aestate (Cicero, De senectute, 14, 46), refrigeratur (id., Pro Roscio, 6), and again: umbris aquisve refrigerari salubrius (De senect., 16, 57) and refrigerationem quaerentes (Pliny, Nat. hist., 21, 46). In the Christian sense it means relief from a place of torment or eternal joy in paradise.

In this symbolic meaning it is already found in the Old Testament (Ps. 65, 11; Wis. 4, 7; Jer. 6, 16); in the New, the rich man in torment asks Lazarus to refresh his tongue (Lk. 16, 24). St. Paul writes: Det misericordiam Dominus Onesiphori domui; quia saepe me refrigeravit (II Tim. 1, 16); Tertullian: spe aeterni refrigerii (De monogamia, 10: PL 2, 942). Cicero indicates that among the Greeks on the very day of the funeral rites the relatives of the deceased gathered for a banquet. The Etruscans and Romans continued this custom, as attested by a large number of monuments. In a Praenestine inscription, for example, the deceased himself asks: peto ego Syncratius a bonis (vobis) universis sodalibus ut sine bile refrigeretis (CIL, XIV, 3323). In the inscription of an Hostilius Flaminius discovered at Feltre, dated 23 August 323, a sum is left to two collegia which will have to refrigerare memoriam eius. In the Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis we read: quid nique non permititis nobis refrigerare... et refrigerandi cum eis? (ed. P. Franchi de' Cavalieri, in Röm. Quartalsch., 10 [1896], p. 136). Tertullian uses the expression refrigerium several times (Adversus Marcionem, 3, 24 and 4, 34; De anima, 33 and 58; De idolatria, 13; De resurr. carnis, 17 and 43; De testimonio animae, 4); but the most notable passage is where he indicates that the Christian spouse prays for her deceased husband: pro anima eius orat et refrigerium interim adpostulat ei, et in prima resurrectione consortium, et offert annuis diebus dormitionis eius (De monogamia, 10: PL 2, 992). Refrigerium is invoked in a series of Christian inscriptions. Among the dated inscriptions one may recall one by Praetextatus from 291 (E. Josi, Le iscrizioni datate del cimitero di Pretestato, in Riv. di arch. crist., 12 [1935], p. 23, n. 2); one now in the Lateran Museum from the year 363 (G. B. De Rossi, Inscr. christ., I, Rome 1857, p. 88, n. 158); one from the year 506 in the cemetery “inter duas lauros” (N. Bull. arch. crist., 24-25 [1918-19], p. 106). There are also the expressions in pace et in refrigerium (E. Dichl, Inscr. lat. chr. veteres, Berlin 1925-31, n. 2722); spiritus in refrigerium, in St. Agnes (ibid., n. 3407); refrigeret nos qui omnia potest, from Marseilles (ibid., n. 2020); Deus Christus omnipotens refrigeret spiritum tuum, in Praetextatus; huius anima refrigerat (ibid., n. 1102); bene refrigerae (G. B. De Rossi, Roma sotter., III, Rome 1877, p. 353, tav. 28, n. 22); mensam cum titulo refrigerationis, in Africa (CIL, VIII, 20780); spiritus tuus in bono refrigeret (G. B. De Rossi, Bull. arch. crist., 5 [1894], p. 145); «voxque ovo καλοκἀγαθίαν» in Panfilo (E. Josi, Descr. del cimitero di Panfilo, in Riv. arch. crist., 3 [1926], p. 98, fig. 23), at Syracuse (P. Orsi, in Notizie Scavi, 1895, p. 514). And again: Domino suo Theofilo et dominae Pontianeti merentibus in refrigerio (E. Josi, Il cimitero di Panfilo, in Riv. arch. crist., 1 [1924], p. 98, fig. 52); Dom(inus) refr(igeret) spir(itum) tu(um) (ibid., p. 65, fig. 16). In the Museum of Palermo, on a cippus from Marsala, there is the scene of a man lying on a “cline” holding a cup (5th century BCE). In the cemetery “inter duas lauros” a man is painted seated on a chair stretching out his hand toward a cup offered by a woman (G. P. Kirsch, Pitture ined. di un arcosolio del cimitero dei SS. Pietro e Marcellino, in Riv. di arch. crist., 7 [1930], p. 38, fig. 4). This is the funeral banquet to which the deceased participates, not in the literal sense, but in the symbolic sense, namely participation in the celestial banquet. In the same cemetery one also sees a deceased woman in the act of holding a poculum; her name is written “Binkentia” and not “Quintia” (Wilpert, Pitture, tav. 107, 1). The same subject is repeated on a marble slab from S. Lorenzo al Verano and on another now at Anagni (Th. Klauser, Die Kathedra im Totenkult der heidnisch. und christl. Antike, Münster 1927, tav. 22, 1 and 2). The chairs carved into the tufa found in the Coemeterium Maius on the Via Nomentana, in the catacombs of Callistus, Panfilo, and “inter duas lauros” were not intended for the living but for the dead, who were imagined as present at the funeral banquet. Such a custom must also have been in force among the people of Israel, since we read: “Set your bread and wine upon the grave of the just and do not eat or drink of it with sinners” (Tob. 4, 18). In the syncretistic hypogeum on the Via Appia, where the priest Sabatius adorned the tomb of his wife Vibia, she is first seen before the judgment of Pluto (Dis Pater) and Proserpina; then introduced (inductio Vibiae) by the angelus bonus to participate in the banquet of the blessed judged worthy of good things (Wilpert, Pitture, pp. 362-63, tav. 132). Tertullian states that: *i nopes quousque refrigerio isto iuvamus* (Apolog., 39), as does Paulinus of Nola: *refrigerare inopem de copia sua* (Epist., 25 in CSEL, 16, p. 232). In the Actus Petri cum Simone it is observed that after Paul’s departure for Spain *non fuisse neminem de fratribus ad quem refrigerare* (ed. R. A. Lippius, I, Leipzig 1891, pp. 51, 27) and mention is made of a widow *quae ad Marcellum refrigerabat* (ibid., pp. 52, 31). In the oratory “ad sanctorum coctum,” perhaps prior to 325, after the celebration of the divine Sacrifice mention is made of a modest refection for the poor and the afflicted (PG 20, 1272). St. Augustine denies that agapae are a continuation of pagan rites; for *agapes enim nostrae pauperes pascunt, sive frugibus, sive carnibus* (Contra Faustum, 20, 21; PL 42, 284). Tertullian explains the meaning of the term “agape”: *ἐγένετο, id quod dilectio penes Graecos est; quantiscumque sumptibus constet, lucrum est pietatis facere sumptum* (Apolog., 39). The rite of refrigerium is therefore a funerary rite, and as such was performed on behalf of the dead or on the anniversary; it was especially celebrated to honor martyrs at their tombs. Commodian exhorts: *si refrigerare cupis animam, ad martyres* (Instructiones, II, Carm. 17, 19). Characteristic in this regard is the letter of Paulinus of Nola in which the bishop recounts that at the banquet offered by Pammachius on the occasion of the death of his wife Paulina in St. Peter’s, the basilica with its five naves was not sufficient to contain the guests who spilled out beyond the basilica. But the custom is ancient, as attested by the graffiti found in St. Sebastian in the triclia, an open-air terrace with a pergola built on a funerary site since the age of Vespasian, in a place destined for public burial, above certain family monuments, one of which certainly passed into the possession of Christians. The graffiti demonstrate that pilgrims used to resort to this triclia, coming from afar to

REFRIGERIO – Man seated on a chair stretching out his hand toward a cup offered by a woman. Fresco of the 4th century – Rome, cemetery “inter duas lauros” (SS. Peter and Marcellinus).

REFRIGERIO – Graffito of the triclia attesting to the refrigerium performed by a certain Parthenius (2nd half of the 3rd century) – Rome, cemetery of St. Sebastian.

Tertullian states that: *i nopes quousque refrigerio isto iuvamus* (Apolog., 39), as does Paulinus of Nola: *refrigerare inopem de copia sua* (Epist., 25 in CSEL, 16, p. 232). Even in the *Actus Petri cum Simone* it is observed that after Paul’s departure for Spain *non fuisse neminem de fratribus ad quem refrigerare* (ed. R. A. Lippius, I, Leipzig 1891, pp. 51, 27) and mention is made of a widow *quae ad Marcellum refrigerabat* (ibid., pp. 52, 31). In the oratory “ad sanctorum coctum,” perhaps dating before 325, after the celebration of the divine Sacrifice there is a reference to a modest repast for the poor and the afflicted (PG 20, 1272). St Augustine denies that the agapae are a continuation of pagan rites, because *agapes enim nostrae pauperes pascunt, sive frugibus, sive carnibus* (Contra Faustum, 20, 21; PL 42, 284). Tertullian explains the meaning of the term “agape”: *ἐγένετο, id quod dilectio penes Graecos est; quantiscumque sumptibus constet, lucrum est pietatis facere sumptum* (Apolog., 39).

The rite of refrigerium is therefore a funerary rite, and as such was observed at the death or anniversary of a person; it was especially celebrated to honor martyrs at their tombs. Commodian exhorts: *si refrigerare cupis animam, ad martyres* (Instructiones, II, Carm. 17, 19). Characteristic in this regard is the letter of Paulinus of Nola in which the bishop recounts that at the banquet offered by Pammachius on the occasion of the death of his wife Paulina in St Peter’s, the basilica with its five naves was not sufficient to contain the guests, who spilled outside the basilica. But the custom is ancient, as attested by the graffiti found in St Sebastian in the triclia, an open-air terrace with a pergola, built on a sepulchral site since the time of Vespasian, in a place intended for public burial, above certain family monuments, one of which certainly passed into Christian hands. The graffiti show that pilgrims used to resort to this triclia, coming from afar.

Banquets for the dead and to honor martyrs degenerated to such an extent that St Ambrose forbade them *quia illa quasi parentalia superstitioni gentilium essent simillima* (St Augustine, Confess., VI, 2), and St Augustine warns that in honor of the most blessed dead martyrs they are celebrated not only on solemn days... but even daily (Ep., 12,3: PL 33, 91). St Gregory the Great likewise sought to adapt himself to the converted Anglo-Saxons (Ep. 76 ad Melitum: PL 77, 1215). In the treatise De duplici martyrio, written in the 4th century, we read: *an non videmus ad martyrum memoriae christianum a christiano cogi ad erire-tatem?* (PL 4, 895). St Augustine, in his letter 22, speaks of drunkenness and wanton feasting in the cemeteries, and notes that not only are honors to martyrs believed by the carnal and uneducated multitude to be solaces for the dead, but also that they are so in fact (PL 33, 92). In the letter written in 392 by Augustine, still a simple priest, to Aurelius bishop of Tagaste, we read that *quoniam de basilica beati apostoli Petri, quotidiana cinnolentiae proferebantur exempla, dixi primo audisse non saepe esse prohibitum* (Ep., 20, 10: PL 33, 119).

II. ORIGIN AND NATURE

This r. presupposed in those who claimed it a superiority of transcendent order. It may be regarded as a r. of conquest: Christ has redeemed us, has shed His blood for us: “He has washed us from our sins in His blood and has made us a kingdom for Himself” (Apoc. 1, 4-5); St Paul exhorts us to give thanks to God “for having delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of His Son” (Col. 1, 13-14). Nevertheless, His r. depends essentially on the divine nature of His person; the hypostatic union has invested His human nature with II. Therefore Jesus Christ professes to have received it from the Father: “And He has given Him power to judge, because He is the Son of Man” (Jn. 5, 27); St Paul recalls that “God has subjected all things to Him” (1 Cor. 15, 28). Strictly speaking, the r. in question resides in the human nature of Christ; otherwise it could not be explained why He claims it in a personal capacity and acknowledges that He has received it from the Father: in His divine nature He had no need to receive it, since it was shared with the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Christ the King is therefore the same God-Man, that is, He who, owing to the Father His divine nature, received from the Virgin His human nature. But since He redeemed us in this nature and through His actions, it is in this same nature that He was invested with the threefold power in which all sovereignty is summed up: legislative, judicial, and executive power. Christ the King is therefore the man who promulgated the precepts of the Gospel, who through His miracles gave proof of His divinity, who founded the Church, who now sits in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and who, before the tribunal of Caiaphas, announced to His judges that they would see Him return one day on the clouds of heaven. Since it derives from the very person of the Son of God, though conferred upon His human nature through which He exercises it, this r. cannot be, and in fact is not, of the same order as that exercised commonly among men; it comprehends and surpasses II. It could therefore have been exercised in all domains, because nothing, neither in heaven nor on earth, is exempt from the power of the God-Man; yet since He came into this world not to establish an earthly kingdom but to establish the Kingdom of God, Jesus did not claim or vindicate for Himself r. except to the extent and in the form in which it serves the accomplishment of His mission; this r. is therefore not destined to supplant or annex the governments of the earth. For this reason the Apostles, who strove to have it accepted, did not in the least think of contesting thereby the authority of constituted powers: these too are willed by God and are to be feared only by evildoers (1 Pt. 2, 12-17; Rom. 13, 1-7). Our Lord Himself had already formally taught this before: if what is God’s must be rendered to God, then what is Caesar’s must be rendered to Caesar. He Himself had acknowledged Pilate’s power to judge Him; the criminal use made of this power against Him did not alter the fact that it came from above (Jn. 19, 11). As for His own power, He had explained to the Roman procurator that it was of a wholly different nature. The r. which He affirmed belonged to Him had no concern with the interests of this world. In this respect, although it had to be exercised in this world, it was not of this world, but was identified with the kingdom of truth; and it was precisely for this that He had come to bear witness to the truth. To accept His r. and submit to it one must be a man of truth (ibid. 18, 36-37).

This is the word to which the Apostles and the Church refer when speaking of the kingdom of JESUS CHRIST: it is essentially of a spiritual order. As expressly recalled in the Preface of the Mass of Christ the King, “this eternal and universal kingdom, which extends to all creatures, is a kingdom of truth and of life, a kingdom of holiness and of grace, a kingdom of justice, of love and of peace.” It is realized, in the proper sense, in the intellects through a firm adherence to the teachings of the Gospel, in the will through a total and trusting submission to its precepts, and in the hearts through a generous dedication capable of the sacrifice of life.

III. THE PROPER END OF THE KINGDOM OF JESUS CHRIST AND ITS RELATIONS WITH CIVIL SOVEREIGNTY

It is impossible to err regarding the purpose to which the kingdom of Jesus Christ is ordered. It is entirely of a supernatural order; the natural order is also involved, but only insofar as it may favor or hinder the realization of God’s designs for humanity. The recognition of the kingdom of Jesus Christ does not imply the establishment of a theocratic government on earth: the heads of State do not receive their power from Christ the King, nor are they His delegates or lieutenants; the Pope, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ in spiritualibus, has no rightful power over civil governments.

Yet the more the kingdom of Jesus Christ is distinguished from civil authority, the more it is superior to II. It comes from another world and tends to lead thither; by its nature and origin, it imposes itself on all and each: there is no one who is not bound to recognize and accept it in its fullness. The “truth,” of which it is the expression, casts its light upon all moral and religious activity of humanity and aims to regulate and order all things to its supernatural end. The Church, which is charged with preserving, spreading, and interpreting it, shares in its authority; it has from Jesus Christ Himself the mission and power to have it accepted; through it, this superhuman kingdom is exercised and manifested. To the Church therefore belongs the task of choosing, determining, approving, and applying the proper means to ensure its radiance. Hence it derives, in relation to any government, an independence that may be said to equal that of the kingdom itself.

Therefore it is not only not hostile to them, but recognizes in civil governments an institution of divine origin, and thus teaches and inculcates respect for them. Yet since God, from whom all their power derives, has subordinated all things to the kingdom of His Son, the Church, which is the instrument of this kingdom, cannot be subject to them. Disorder, rather, would arise were governments to place obstacles in the way of the Church’s fulfillment of its mission. Rather, they must, when the Church so requests and to the extent that it accepts, lend their aid. In doing so they do not deviate from their own end; they merely acknowledge the supreme end which their subjects must attain and to which it is for the Church alone to lead them. For this reason it is necessary for the Church to reach its subjects as they are, that is, not only as individuals but as men made to live—and in fact living—in society; and since society in general and the particular societies which men form among themselves (first of all the family) constantly appeal to their conscience, the Church cannot leave them without guidance or aid in those spheres where the gravest responsibilities are often at stake. Hence arises for the Church the duty to promote what is called the social kingdom of Jesus Christ.

IV. THE SOCIAL KINGDOM OF JESUS CHRIST

By these terms one may understand a certain participation of various social groups in the worship and homage rendered to the person of Jesus Christ: worship and homage which must be accompanied, under pain of being vain and derisory, by a certain cooperation with the work of salvation pursued by the Son of God in the world. Consequently they create between the Church and the various States a union or alliance which, without confusing their domains, involves a certain interference of their activities. In seeking and striving to maintain this union, the Church does not merely ask that it be recognized and that the institutions of Christ be left the possibility of exercising and making felt their influence on all that, depending on man, depends by that very fact on God; it also intends to claim for men themselves the right not to be hindered but rather to be aided by those who govern them in attaining that which constitutes their supreme end.

The desired understanding between the two powers is thus ordered to the advantage of those who are at once members of civil society and faithful of the Church.

Yet however desirable and fruitful this understanding may be, it is not precisely in this that the social kingdom of Jesus Christ consists or is manifested. In social life, as in the personal life of individuals, this kingdom is essentially of an interior order. It consists first of all in the application of the religious and moral principles taught or inculcated by Christ to the various contingencies of life. As Pius XII observed in his address of 10 February 1952 to the people of Rome, it would avail nothing to proclaim the divine fatherhood or kingship if one were to forbid any intervention whatsoever in private or public life. It would avail nothing to be enthusiastic about the ideas of justice, charity, and peace if one were already determined not to make any sacrifice of oneself for these virtues. There is consequently no kingdom of Christ in families unless He Himself presides over their formation and the attainment of the ends which God has assigned to them; He does not preside over social relations in general unless to the extent that He obtains the banishment of the exclusive pursuit of personal interest; there is no social kingdom of Christ where the spirit of profit and domination reigns, stifling in souls even the most elementary feelings of humanity, or the spirit of greed, which suffers less from being without good than from seeing others better provided.

Whichever the sphere in which it is exercised, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is established only on the basis of a total adherence to the teachings of the Gospel, a trusting acceptance of the directives of the Church, and a charity which unites God and neighbor in an equally sincere and effective love. By this sign, as He said to His Apostles, Jesus Christ will always recognize those who truly accept that He reigns in them and over them. — See pl. XXII.

Special studies: A. Taverna, *La sovranità universale di Cristo Re*, in *Civiltà Cattolica* 1925, III, pp. 481–93; IV, pp. 5–12; *La regalità di Cristo*, Atti del I congresso nazionale della regalità di Gesù Cristo, Milan 1926; L. Chambat, *La royauté du Christ selon la doctrine catholique*, Paris 1931; Ch. V. LÉRINS, *La royauté du Christ*, in *Revue de théologie*, 15e année, 15 (1926), pp. 207–324; M. J. Nicolas, *Le Christ roi des nations*, in *Rev. Thom.*, 44 (1938), pp. 437–481; A. Faccenda, *Esistenza e natura della regalità di Cristo*, Asti 1939; Théotime de Saint-Juste, *La royauté sociale de J.-C.*, in *Collationes Brugenses*, 39 (1939), pp. 209–216, 278–85; L. van den Bruwane, *L’Église vivante*, 3rd ed., Brussels 1947, pp. 308–82; J. Leclercq, *La royauté du Christ dans les lettres des Papes du XIIIe siècle*, in *Rev. hist. du droit français et étranger*, 4th series, 20 (1942), pp. 112–120; id., *L’idée de la royauté du Christ au XIIIe siècle*, in *L’année théologique*, 5 (1944), pp. 218–44; M. Cordovani, *Il Salvatore*, 2nd ed., Rome 1946, pp. 431–470; J. Leclercq, *L’idée de la royauté du Christ au XIIIe siècle*, in *Miscellanea Pio Paschini*, Rome 1948, pp. 405–425; A. van Hove, *De Deo Redemptore*, Malines 1948, pp. 205–12 (note on the controversy regarding the nature of the kingship of Jesus Christ and bibliography); A. Sanna, *La regalità di Cristo secondo la scuola francescana*, Padua 1951.