Mediator Dei

On the Sacred Liturgy

Pope Pius XII – 1947

131. It is on this doctrinal basis that the cult of adoring the Eucharist was founded and gradually developed as something distinct from the sacrifice of the Mass. The reservation of the sacred species for the sick and those in danger of death introduced the praiseworthy custom of adoring the blessed Sacrament which is reserved in our churches. This practice of adoration, in fact, is based on strong and solid reasons. For the Eucharist is at once a sacrifice and a sacrament; but it differs from the other sacraments in this that it not only produces grace, but contains in a permanent manner the Author of grace Himself. When, therefore, the Church bids us adore Christ hidden behind the eucharistic veils and pray to Him for spiritual and temporal favors, of which we ever stand in need, she manifests living faith in her divine Spouse who is present beneath these veils, she professes her gratitude to Him and she enjoys the intimacy of His friendship.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12media.htm

General Council of Trent: Fourth Session

Council Fathers – 1546

Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year MDXLVI.

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this [Page 18]always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

St Augustine, Sermon 76 on the New Testament

On the words of the Gospel, John 5:19 , The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing.

1. The mysteries and secrets of the kingdom of God first seek for believing men, that they may make them understanding. For faith is understanding’s step; and understanding faith’s attainment. This the Prophet expressly says to all who prematurely and in undue order look for understanding, and neglect faith. For he says, Unless ye believe, you shall not understand. Faith itself then also has a certain light of its own in the Scriptures, in Prophecy, in the Gospel, in the Lessons of the Apostles. For all these things which are read to us in this present time, are lights in a dark place, that we may be nourished up unto the day. The Apostle Peter says, We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that you take heed, as unto a light in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.

2. You see then, Brethren, how exceedingly unregulated and disordered in their haste are they who like immature conceptions seek an untimely birth before the birth; who say to us, Why do you bid me believe what I do not see? Let me see something that I may believe. Thou biddest me believe while yet I see not; I wish to see, and by seeing to believe, not by hearing. Let the Prophet speak. Unless ye believe, you shall not understand. You wish to ascend, and dost forget the steps. Surely, out of all order. O man, if I could show you already what you might see, I should not exhort you to believe.

3. Faith then, as it has been elsewhere defined, is the firm support of those who hope, the evidence of things which are not seen.If they are not seen, how are they evidenced to be? What! Whence are these things which you see, but from That which you see not? To be sure you see somewhat that you may believe somewhat, and from that you see, may believe what you see not. Be not ungrateful to Him who has made you see, whereby you may be able to believe what as yet you can not see. God has given you eyes in the body, reason in the heart; arouse the reason of the heart, wake up the interior inhabitant of your interior eyes, let it take to its windows, examine the creature of God. For there is one within who sees by the eyes. For when your thoughts within you are on any other subject, and the inhabitant within is turned away, the things which are before your eyes you see not. For to no purpose are the windows open, when he who looks through them is away. It is not then the eyes that see, but some one sees by the eyes; awake him, arouse him. For this has not been denied you; God has made you a rational animal, set you over the cattle, formed you after His Own image. Ought you to use them as the cattle do; only to see what to add to your belly, not to your soul? Stir up, I say, the eye of reason, use your eyes as a man should, consider the heaven and earth, the ornaments of the heaven, the fruitfulness of the earth, the flight of the birds, the swimming of the fish, the virtue of the seeds, the order of the seasons; consider the works, and seek for the Author; take a view of what you see, and seek Him whom you see not. Believe on Him whom you see not, because of these things which you see. And lest you think that it is with my own words that I have exhorted you; hear the Apostle saying, For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen by those things which are made.

4. These things you disregarded, nor looked upon them as a man, but as an irrational animal. The Prophet cried out to you, and cried in vain. Be not like to horse and mule, which have no understanding. These things I say you saw, and disregard. God’s daily miracles were disesteemed, not for their easiness, but their constant repetition. For what is more difficult to understand than a man’s birth, that one who was in existence should by dying depart into darkness, and that one who was not, by being born should come forth to light? What so marvellous, what so difficult to comprehend? But with God easy to be done. Marvel at these things, awake; at His unusual works, you can wonder, are they greater than those which you are accustomed to see? Men wondered that our Lord God Jesus Christ filled so many thousands with five loaves; and they do not wonder that through a few grains the whole earth is filled with crops. When the water was made wine, men saw it, and were amazed; what else takes place with the rain along the root of the vine? He did the one, He does the other; the one that you may be fed, the other that you may wonder. But both are wonderful, for both are the works of God. Man sees unusual things, and wonders; whence is the man himself who wonders? Where was he? Whence came he forth? Whence the fashion of his body? Whence the distinction of his limbs? Whence that beautiful form? From what beginnings? What contemptible beginnings? And he wonders at other things, when he the wonderer is himself a great wonder. Whence then are these things which you see but from Him whom you see not? But as I had begun to say, because these things were disesteemed by you, He came Himself to do unusual things, that in these usual ones too you might acknowledge your Creator. He came to Whom it is said, Renew signs. To Whom it is said, Show forth Your marvellous mercies. For dispensing them He ever was; He dispensed them, and no one marvelled. Therefore came He a Little one to the little, He came a Physician to the sick, who was able to come when He would, to return when He would, to do whatsoever He would, to judge as He would. And this, His will, is very righteousness; yea what He wills, I say, is very righteousness. For that is not unrighteous which He wills, nor can that be right which He wills not. He came to raise the dead, men marvelling that He restored a man to the light who was in light already, He who day by day brings forth to the light those who were not.

5. These things He did, yet was He despised by the many, who considered not so much what great things He did, as how small He was; as though they said within themselves, These are divine things, but He is a man. Two things then you see, divine works, and a man. If divine works cannot be wrought but by God, take heed lest in This Man God lie concealed. Attend, I say, to what you see; believe what you see not. He has not abandoned you, who has called you to believe; though He enjoin you to believe that which you can not see: yet has He not given you up to see nothing whereby you may be able to believe what you do not see. Is the creation itself a small sign, a small indication of the Creator? He also came, He did miracles. You could not see God, a man you could, so God was made Man, that in One you might have both what to see, and what to believe. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Thus you hear, and as yet see not. Lo, He comes, lo, He is born, lo, He comes forth of a woman, who made man and woman. He who made man and woman was not made by man and woman. For you would perhaps have been likely to despise Him for being born, the manner of His birth can you not despise; for He ever was before that He was born. Lo, I say, He took a Body, He was clothed in Flesh, He came forth from the womb. Do you now see? Do you see now, I say? I ask as to the Flesh, but I point out as to That Flesh; something you see, and something you see not. Lo, in this very Birth, there are at once two things, one which you may see, and another you may not see; but so that by this which you see, you may believe that which you see not. You had begun to despise, because you see Him who was born; believe what you do not see, that He was born of a virgin. How trifling a person, says one, is he who was born! But how great is He who was of a virgin born! And He who was born of a virgin brought you a temporal miracle; He was not born of a father, of any man, I mean, His father, yet was He born of the flesh. But let it not seem impossible to you, that He was born by His mother only, Who made man before father and mother.

6. He brought you then a temporal miracle, that you may seek and admire Him who is Eternal. For He who came forth as a Bridegroom out of His chamber, that is, out of the virgin’s womb, where the holy nuptials were celebrated of the Word and the Flesh: He brought, I say, a temporal miracle; but He is Himself eternal, He is coeternal with the Father, He it is, who In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He did for you whereby you might be cured, that you might be able to see what you did not see. What you despise in Christ, is not yet the contemplation of him that is made whole, but the medicine of the sick. Do not hasten to the vision of the whole. The Angels see, the Angels rejoice, the Angels feed Thereon and live; Whereon they feed fails not, nor is their food minished. In the thrones of glory, in the regions of the heavens, in the parts which are above the heavens, the Word is seen by the Angels, and is their Joy; is their Food, and endures. But in order that man might eat Angel’s Bread, the Lord of Angels became Man. This is our Salvation, the Medicine of the infirm, the Food of the whole.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars

Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine

Article 9. Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?

Objection 1. It seems that Holy Scripture should not use metaphors. For that which is proper to the lowest science seems not to befit this science, which holds the highest place of all. But to proceed by the aid of various similitudes and figures is proper to poetry, the least of all the sciences. Therefore it is not fitting that this science should make use of such similitudes.

Objection 2. Further, this doctrine seems to be intended to make truth clear. Hence a reward is held out to those who manifest it: “They that explain me shall have life everlasting” (Sirach 24:31). But by such similitudes truth is obscured. Therefore, to put forward divine truths by likening them to corporeal things does not befit this science.

Objection 3. Further, the higher creatures are, the nearer they approach to the divine likeness. If therefore any creature be taken to represent God, this representation ought chiefly to be taken from the higher creatures, and not from the lower; yet this is often found in Scriptures.

On the contrary, It is written (Hosea 12:10): “I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets.” But to put forward anything by means of similitudes is to use metaphors. Therefore this sacred science may use metaphors.

I answer that, It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i):

“We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils.”

It is also befitting Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons — “To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor” (Romans 1:14) — that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.

Reply to Objection 1. Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful.

Reply to Objection 2. The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i); and its truth so far remains that it does not allow the minds of those to whom the revelation has been made, to rest in the metaphors, but raises them to the knowledge of truths; and through those to whom the revelation has been made others also may receive instruction in these matters. Hence those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words “Give not that which is holy to dogs” (Matthew 7:6).

Reply to Objection 3. As Dionysius says, (Coel. Hier. i) it is more fitting that divine truths should be expounded under the figure of less noble than of nobler bodies, and this for three reasons. Firstly, because thereby men’s minds are the better preserved from error. For then it is clear that these things are not literal descriptions of divine truths, which might have been open to doubt had they been expressed under the figure of nobler bodies, especially for those who could think of nothing nobler than bodies. Secondly, because this is more befitting the knowledge of God that we have in this life. For what He is not is clearer to us than what He is. Therefore similitudes drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatsoever we may say or think of Him. Thirdly, because thereby divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article9

Way of the Cross

(Also called Stations of the Cross, Via Crucis, and Via Dolorosa). These names are used to signify either a series of pictures or tableaux representing certain scenes in the Passion of Christ, each corresponding to a particular incident, or the special form of devotion connected with such representations.

Taken in the former sense, the Stations may be of stone, wood, or metal, sculptured or carved, or they may be merely paintings or engravings. Some Stations are valuable works of art, as those, for instance, in Antwerp cathedral, which have been much copied elsewhere. They are usually ranged at intervals around the walls of a church, though sometimes they are to be found in the open air, especially on roads leading to a church or shrine. In monasteries they are often placed in the cloisters. The erection and use of the Stations did not become at all general before the end of the seventeenth century, but they are now to be found in almost every church. Formerly their number varied considerably in different places but fourteen are now prescribed by authority. They are as follows:

Christ condemned to death;
the cross is laid upon him;
His first fall;
He meets His Blessed Mother;
Simon of Cyrene is made to bear the cross;
Christ’s face is wiped by Veronica;
His second fall;
He meets the women of Jerusalem;
His third fall;
He is stripped of His garments;
His crucifixion;
His death on the cross;
His body is taken down from the cross; and
laid in the tomb.

The object of the Stations is to help the faithful to make in spirit, as it were, a pilgrimage to the chief scenes of Christ’s sufferings and death, and this has become one of the most popular of Catholic devotions. It is carried out by passing from Station to Station, with certain prayers at each and devout meditation on the various incidents in turn. It is very usual, when the devotion is performed publicly, to sing a stanza of the “Stabat Mater” while passing from one Station to the next.

Inasmuch as the Way of the Cross, made in this way, constitutes a miniature pilgrimage to the holy places at Jerusalem, the origin of the devotion may be traced to the Holy Land. The Via Dolorosa at Jerusalem (though not called by that name before the sixteenth century) was reverently marked out from the earliest times and has been the goal of pious pilgrims ever since the days of Constantine. Tradition asserts that the Blessed Virgin used to visit daily the scenes of Christ’s Passion and St. Jerome speaks of the crowds of pilgrims from all countries who used to visit the holy places in his day. There is, however, no direct evidence as to the existence of any set form of the devotion at that early date, and it is noteworthy that St. Sylvia (c. 380) says nothing about it in her “Peregrinatio ad loca sancta”, although she describes minutely every other religious exercise that she saw practised there. A desire to reproduce the holy places in other lands, in order to satisfy the devotion of those who were hindered from making the actual pilgrimage, seems to have manifested itself at quite an early date. At the monastery of San Stefano at Bologna a group of connected chapels were constructed as early as the fifth century, by St. Petronius, Bishop of Bologna, which were intended to represent the more important shrines of Jerusalem, and in consequence, this monastery became familiarly known as “Hierusalem”. These may perhaps be regarded as the germ from which the Stations afterwards developed, though it is tolerably certain that nothing that we have before about the fifteenth century can strictly be called a Way of the Cross in the modern sense. Several travellers, it is true, who visited the Holy Land during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, mention a “Via Sacra”, i.e., a settled route along which pilgrims were conducted, but there is nothing in their accounts to identify this with the Via Crucis, as we understand it, including special stopping-places with indulgences attached, and such indulgenced Stations must, after all, be considered to be the true origin of the devotion as now practised. It cannot be said with any certainty when such indulgences began to be granted, but most probably they may be due to the Franciscans, to whom in 1342 the guardianship of the holy places was entrusted. Ferraris mentions the following as Stations to which indulgences were attached: the place where Christ met His Blessed Mother, where He spoke to the women of Jerusalem, where He met Simon of Cyrene, where the soldiers cast lots for His garment, where He was nailed to the cross, Pilate’s house, and the Holy Sepulchre. Analogous to this it may be mentioned that in 1520 Leo X granted an indulgence of a hundred days to each of a set of sculptured Stations, representing the Seven Dolours of Our Lady, in the cemetery of the Franciscan Friary at Antwerp, the devotion connected with them being a very popular one. The earliest use of the word Stations, as applied to the accustomed halting-places in the Via Sacra at Jerusalem, occurs in the narrative of an English pilgrim, William Wey, who visited the Holy Land in 1458 and again in 1462, and who describes the manner in which it was then usual to follow the footsteps of Christ in His sorrowful journey. It seems that up to that time it had been the general practice to commence at Mount Calvary, and proceeding thence, in the opposite direction to Christ, to work back to Pilate’s house. By the early part of the sixteenth century, however, the more reasonable way of traversing the route, by beginning at Pilate’s house and ending at Mount Calvary, had come to be regarded as more correct, and it became a special exercise of devotion complete in itself. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries several reproductions of the holy places were set up in different parts of Europe. The Blessed Alvarez (d. 1420), on his return from the Holy Land, built a series of little chapels at the Dominican friary of Cordova, in which, after the pattern of separate Stations, were painted the principal scenes of the Passion. About the same time the Blessed Eustochia, a poor Clare, constructed a similar set of Stations in her convent at Messina. Others that may be enumerated were those at Görlitz, erected by G. Emmerich, about 1465, and at Nuremburg, by Ketzel, in 1468. Imitations of these were made at Louvain in 1505 by Peter Sterckx; at St. Getreu in Bamberg in 1507; at Fribourg and at Rhodes, about the same date, the two latter being in the commanderies of the Knights of Rhodes. Those at Nuremburg, which were carved by Adam Krafft, as well as some of the others, consisted of seven Stations, popularly known as “the Seven Falls”, because in each of them Christ was represented either as actually prostrate or as sinking under the weight of His cross. A famous set of Stations was set up in 1515 by Romanet Bofin at Romans in Dauphine, in imitation of those at Fribourg, and a similar set was erected in 1491 at Varallo by the Franciscans there, whose guardian, Blessed Bernardino Caimi, had been custodian of the holy places. In several of these early examples an attempt was made, not merely to duplicate the most hallowed spots of the original Via Dolorosa at Jerusalem, but also to reproduce the exact intervals between them, measured in paces, so that devout people might cover precisely the same distances as they would have done had they made the pilgrimage to the Holy Land itself. Boffin and some of the others visited Jerusalem for the express purpose of obtaining the exact measurements, but unfortunately, though each claimed to be correct, there is an extraordinary divergence between some of them.<hardpoint=”ad-cathen-middle” categories=”4674472789+3716209873+5804711220″></hardpoint=”ad-cathen-middle”>

With regard to the number of Stations it is not at all easy to determine how this came to be fixed at fourteen, for it seems to have varied considerably at different times and places. And, naturally, with varying numbers the incidents of the Passion commemorated also varied greatly. Wey’s account, written in the middle of the fifteenth century, gives fourteen, but only five of these correspond with ours, and of the others, seven are only remotely connected with our Via Crucis:

The house of Dives,
the city gate through which Christ passed,
the probatic pool,
the Ecce Homo arch,
the Blessed Virgin’s school, and
the houses of Herod and Simon the Pharisee.

When Romanet Boffin visited Jerusalem in 1515 for the purpose of obtaining correct details for his set of Stations at Romans, two friarsthere told him that there ought to be thirty-one in all, but in the manuals of devotion subsequently issued for the use of those visiting these Stations they are given variously as nineteen, twenty-five, and thirty-seven, so it seems that even in the same place the number was not determined very definitely. A book entitled “Jerusalem sicut Christi tempore floruit”, written by one Adrichomius and published in 1584, gives twelve Stations which correspond exactly with the first twelve of ours, and this fact is thought by some to point conclusively to the origin of the particular selection afterwards authorized by the Church, especially as this book had a wide circulation and was translated into several European languages. Whether this is so or not we cannot say for certain. At any rate, during the sixteenth century, a number of devotional manuals, giving prayers for use when making the Stations, were published in the Low Countries, and some of our fourteen appear in them for the first time. But whilst this was being done in Europe for the benefit of those who could not visit the Holy Land and yet could reach Louvain, Nuremburg, Romans, or one of the other reproductions of the Via Dolorosa, it appears doubtful whether, even up to the end of the sixteenth century, there was any settled form of the devotion performed publicly in Jerusalem, for Zuallardo, who wrote a book on the subject, published in Rome in 1587, although he gives a full series of prayers, etc., for the shrines within the Holy Sepulchre, which were under the care of the Franciscans, provides none for the Stations themselves. He explains the reason thus: “it is not permitted to make any halt, nor to pay veneration to them with uncovered head, nor to make any other demonstration”. From this it would seem that after Jerusalem had passed under the Turkish domination the pious exercises of the Way of the Cross could be performed far more devoutly at Nuremburg or Louvain than in Jerusalem itself. It may therefore be conjectured, with extreme probability, that our present series of Stations, together with the accustomed series of prayers for them, comes to us, not from Jerusalem, but from some of the imitation Ways of the Cross in different parts of Europe, and that we owe the propagation of the devotion, as well as the number and selection of our Stations, much more to the pious ingenuity of certain sixteenth-century devotional writers than to the actual practice of pilgrims to the holy places.

With regard to the particular subjects which have been retained in our series of Stations, it may be noted that very few of the medievalaccounts make any mention of either the second (Christ receiving the cross) or the tenth (Christ being stripped of His garments), whilst others which have since dropped out appear in almost all the early lists. One of the most frequent of these is the Station formerly made at the remains of the Ecce Homo arch, i.e. the balcony from which these words were pronounced. Additions and omissions such as these seem to confirm the supposition that our Stations are derived from pious manuals of devotion rather than from Jerusalem itself. The three falls of Christ (third, seventh, and ninth Stations) are apparently all that remain of the Seven Falls, as depicted by Krafft at Nuremburg and his imitators, in all of which Christ was represented as either falling or actually fallen. In explanations of this it is supposed that the other four falls coincided with His meetings with His Mother, Simon of Cyrene, Veronica, and the women of Jerusalem, and that in these four the mention of the fall has dropped out whilst it survives in the other three which have nothing else to distinguish them. A few medieval writers take the meeting with Simon and the women of Jerusalem to have been simultaneous, but the majority represent them as separate events. The Veronica incident does not occur in many of the earlier accounts, whilst almost all of those that do mention it place it as having happened just before reaching Mount Calvary, instead of earlier in the journey as in our present arrangement. An interesting variation is found in the special set of eleven stations ordered in 1799 for use in the diocese of Vienne. It is as follows:

the Agony in the Garden;
the betrayal by Judas;
the scourging;
the crowning with thorns;
Christ condemned to death;
He meets Simon of Cyrene;
the women of Jerusalem;
He tastes the gall;
He is nailed to the cross;
His death on the cross; and
His body is taken down from the cross.

It will be noticed that only five of these correspond exactly with our Stations. The others, though comprising the chief events of the Passion, are not strictly incidents of the Via Dolorosa itself.

Another variation that occurs in different churches relates to the side of the church on which the Stations begin. The Gospel side is perhaps the more usual. In reply to a question the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, in 1837, said that, although nothing was ordered on this point, beginning on the Gospel side seemed to be the more appropriate. In deciding the matter, however, the arrangement and form of a church may make it more convenient to go the other way. The position of the figures in the tableaux, too, may sometimes determine the direction of the route, for it seems more in accordance with the spirit of the devotion that the procession, in passing from station to station, should follow Christ rather than meet Him.

The erection of the Stations in churches did not become at all common until towards the end of the seventeenth century, and the popularity of the practice seems to have been chiefly due to the indulgences attached. The custom originated with the Franciscans, but its special connection with that order has now disappeared. It has already been said that numerous indulgences were formerly attached to the holy places at Jerusalem. Realizing that few persons, comparatively, were able to gain these by means of a personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Innocent XI, in 1686, granted to the Franciscans, in answer to their petition, the right to erect the Stations in all their churches, and declared that all the indulgences that had ever been given for devoutly visiting the actual scenes of Christ’s Passion, could thenceforth be gained by Franciscans and all others affiliated to their order if they made the Way of the Cross in their own churches in the accustomed manner. Innocent XII confirmed the privilege in 1694 and Benedict XIII in 1726 extended it to all the faithful. In 1731 Clement XII still further extended it by permitting the indulgenced Stations to all churches, provided that they were erected by a Franciscan father with the sanction of the ordinary. At the same time he definitely fixed the number of Stations at fourteen. Benedict XIVin 1742 exhorted all priests to enrich their churches with so great a treasure, and there are few churches now without the Stations. In 1857 the bishops of England received faculties from the Holy See to erect Stations themselves, with the indulgences attached, wherever there were no Franciscans available, and in 1862 this last restriction was removed and the bishops were empowered to erect the Stations themselves, either personally or by delegate, anywhere within their jurisdiction. These faculties are quinquennial. There is some uncertainty as to what are the precise indulgences belonging to the stations. It is agreed that all that have ever been granted to the faithful for visiting the holy places in person can now be gained by making the Via Crucis in any church where the Stations have been erected in due form, but the Instructions of the Sacred Congregation, approved by Clement XII in 1731, prohibit priests and others from specifying what or how many indulgences may be gained. In 1773 Clement XIV attached the same indulgence, under certain conditions, to crucifixes duly blessed for the purpose, for the use of the sick, those at sea or in prison, and others lawfully hindered from making the Stations in a church. The conditions are that, whilst holding the crucifix in their hands, they must say the “Pater” and “Ave” fourteen times, then the “Pater”, “Ave”, and “Gloria” five times, and the same again once each for the pope’s intentions. If one person hold the crucifix, a number present may gain the indulgences provided the other conditions are fulfilled by all. Such crucifixes cannot be sold, lent, or given away, without losing the indulgence.

The following are the principal regulations universally in force at the present time with regard to the Stations:

If a pastor or a superior of a convent, hospital, etc., wishes to have the Stations erected in their places he must ask permission of the bishop. If there are Franciscan Fathers in the same town or city, their superior must be asked to bless the Stations or delegate some priest either of his own monastery or a secular priest. If there are no Franciscan Fathers in that place the bishops who have obtained from the Holy See the extraordinary of Form C can delegate any priest to erect the Stations. This delegation of a certain priest for the blessing of the Stations must necessarily be done in writing. The pastor of such a church, or the superior of such a hospital, convent, etc., should take care to sign the document the bishop or the superior of the monastery sends, so that he may thereby express his consent to have the Stations erected in their place, for the bishop’s and the respective pastor’s or superior’s consent must be had before the Stations are blessed, otherwise the blessing is null and void;
Pictures or tableaux of the various Stations are not necessary. It is to the cross placed over them that the indulgence is attached. These crosses must be of wood; no other material will do. If only painted on the wall the erection is null (Cong. Ind., 1837, 1838, 1845);
If, for restoring the church, for placing them in a more convenient position, or for any other reasonable cause, the crosses are moved, this may be done without the indulgence being lost (1845). If any of the crosses, for some reason, have to be replaced, no fresh blessing is required, unless more than half of them are so replaced (1839).
There should if possible be a separate meditation on each of the fourteen incidents of the Via Crucis, not a general meditation on the Passion nor on other incidents not included in the Stations. No particular prayers are ordered;
The distance required between the Stations is not defined. Even when only the clergy move from one Station to another the faithful can still gain the indulgence without moving;
It is necessary to make all the Stations uninterruptedly (S.C.I., 22 January, 1858). Hearing Mass or going to Confession or Communion between Stations is not considered an interruption. According to many the Stations may be made more than once on the same day, the indulgence may be gained each time; but this is by no means certain (S.C.I., 10 Sept., 1883). Confession and Communion on the day of making the Stations are not necessary provided the person making them is in a state of grace;
Ordinarily the Stations should be erected within a church or public oratory. If the Via Crucis goes outside, e.g., in a cemetery or cloister, it should if possible begin and end in the church.
In conclusion it may be safely asserted that there is no devotion more richly endowed with indulgences than the Way of the Cross, and none which enables us more literally to obey Christ’s injunction to take up our cross and follow Him. A perusal of the prayers usually given for this devotion in any manual will show what abundant spiritual graces, apart from the indulgences, may be obtained through a right use of them, and the fact that the Stations may be made either publicly or privately in any church renders the devotion specially suitable for all. One of the most popularly attended Ways of the Cross at the present day is that in the Colosseum at Rome, where every Friday the devotion of the Stations is conducted publicly by a Franciscan Father.

About this page
APA citation. Alston, G.C. (1912). Way of the Cross. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 16, 2019 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm

MLA citation. Alston, George Cyprian. “Way of the Cross.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company,1912. 16 Jun. 2019 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15569a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Marie Jutras.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can’t reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

“Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

Devotion to the Holy Face

Numbers 6:24-26 “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee. The Lord shew His Face to thee, and have mercy on thee. The Lord turn His Countenance to thee, and give thee peace.”

Psalm 26:8 “My heart hath said to thee: My face hath sought Thee: Thy Face, O Lord, will I still seek.”
Numbers 6:24-26 “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee. The Lord shew His Face to thee, and have mercy on thee. The Lord turn His Countenance to thee, and give thee peace.”

I Corinthians 13:12 “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to Face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”

Devotion to the Holy Face is like the Devotions to Christ’s Childhood and Five Wounds: it is another aspect of focusing on the Incarnation that Latin Catholics love to contemplate, but an aspect that is especially compelling because of the nature of the human face. When we think of someone we love, we think of that person’s face because it is primarily the face that identifies and expresses who that person is. Indeed, the very word “person” is rooted in the Latin word for “mask.” We can look at a friend and know instantly how he is feeling by his subtle expression — by the “lights” of his eyes and that ineffable way the eyes act as a “window to the soul.”

Now consider! Because of the Incarnation, there is God with a human Face! The Divine Being with human eyes — eyes into which human beings could gaze, eyes that beheld things as beautiful as His mother, and as ugly as soldiers’ spittle. God with eyes that cried (John 11:35). Meditating on the Holy Face is not simply to recall the visage of some spiritual teacher who lived on earth 2,000 years ago; it is to realize something so movingly true about the One Who created the very Sun and Moon and stars: that He is a deeply personal Being, so personal that He took on our nature and walked among us, looking at us through human eyes, and letting Himself be seen.

John 14:5-9
Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me. If you had known Me, you would without doubt have known My Father also: and from henceforth you shall know Him, and you have seen Him. Philip saith to Him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth Me seeth the Father also.

So this is what the Father is like! Alleluia! God isn’t some far-away, coldly intellectual “source”; He is Father, and we see Him through the human Face of His Son Who wept at the ugliness of St. Lazarus’s death, Who healed the sick, Who allowed Himself to be beaten for our iniquities. We aren’t evolved monkey-flesh that suffers needlessly and without meaning; we are creatures deeply loved by a personal God, called to partake of the Divine Nature! The very fact that God took on a human Face is a rich Mystery, and behind that adorable Countenace is the eternal Mystery of God Himself.

Devotion to the Holy Face isn’t only a matter of marvelling at these Truths, however; in another sense, it is to “become St. Veronica “– the woman we recall at the sixth Station of the Cross, the one who took pity on Him and wiped the sweat from His Face with her veil which bears the impession of His Holy Face to this day. It is to do as she did and comfort Jesus for the wounds the world still inflicts on Him with its irreverence, sacrilege, and blasphemy — especially by doing that which pleases Him most: bringing souls to Him.

St. Veronica holding her veil

There has been devotion to the Holy Face ever since Our Lord walked the earth. His mother looking down into the manger and seeing the Face of a beautiful Boy, the eyes of St. Mary Magdalen as she looked up at Him with love after anointing His Feet with perfume, the already mentioned St. Veronica whose veil, along with the Holy Shroud, is the basis for our depictions of Christ in the icons upon which we’ve gazed for two millennia — all who saw Him and knew Who He was carried the image of His Holy Face with them in their hearts. But throughout Catholic History, there have been those who’ve done more than others to popularize the devotion in an explicit way.

Mid-19th Century:
Sister Mary of Saint Peter
and the Venerable Leo Dupont

In the mid-19th century, in Tours, France, a Carmelite nun named Sister Marie de Saint Pierre (1816-1848) received a private revelation from Our Lord that “Those who will contemplate the wounds on My Face here on earth, shall contemplate it radiant in heaven.” In her vision, she was transported to the road to Calvary and saw St. Veronica wiping away the spit and mud from His Holy Face with her veil. Sister realized that the taking of the Name of God in vain and all the other sacrilegious and blasphemous acts that men do fall on the Lord’s Face like that spit and mud that St. Veronica so lovingly wiped away. Jesus revealed to Sister that He desired devotion to His Holy Face in reparation for sacrilege, the profanation of Sundays, and blasphemy, which He described to her as being like a “poisoned arrow.” To her He dictated the prayer which has become known as “The Golden Arrow” and which honors His Holy Name:

The Golden Arrow

May the most Holy, most Sacred, most Adorable, Most Incomprehensible and Ineffable Name of God Be always Praised, Blessed, Loved, Adored and Glorified, In Heaven, on Earth and under the Earth, By all the Creatures of God, And by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, In the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Amen.

At around the time Sister was receiving her visions, into Tours from Martinique moved the saintly Monsieur Leo Dupont (1797-1876), a man whose young wife had died and whose daughter God also took in this interesting way: she’d begun moving about in “fashionable circles” and taking on a worldly air that caused M. Dupont to worry about her eternal welfare, so much so that he prayed, “My God, if You foresee that my daughter will part from You, I ask you to take her with You so that she will not be separated from You.” His daughter soon died of typhoid. Though tormented by his temporal loss, he kept his faith in God and nurtured it.

He soon heard of Sr. Mary of St. Peter’s efforts to spread devotion to the Holy Face and, inspired by the Holy Ghost through her example, decided to dedicate his life to this work. He kept an oil lamp burning continuously before an image of the Holy Face, and his home became a center of pilgrimage when people began to gather to pray before the image, with many receiving miraculous cures through the application of his lamp’s oil to their skin. He went on to establish the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face, and was later recognized by the Church as a “Venerable.” He is now known familiarly as “The Holy Man of Tours.”

Late 19th Century:
St. Therese of the
Child Jesus and of the Holy Face

Image of Christ based on the image on Veronica's Veil St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face

About the picture she venerated — a picture based on the image of
St. Veronica’s Veil — St. Therese said, “How well Our Lord did to
lower His eyes when He gave us His portrait! Since the eyes are the
mirror of the soul, if we had seen His soul, we would have died from joy.”

In yet another sense, devotion to the Holy Face inspires us to know how to imitate Him best, teaches us how to “put on Christ.” What did people see when they saw Our Blessed Lord? The Prophet Isaias tells us:

Isaias 52:14, 53:2-3
As many have been astonished at thee, so shall His Visage be inglorious among men, and His form among the sons of men… And He shall grow up as a tender plant before Him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in Him, nor comeliness: and we have seen Him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and His look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed Him not.

It is this sense of the Holy Face devotion — meditating on the despised, suffering Countenance that hid His Divinity from those who had no eyes to see — that inspired the spirituality of St. Therese of Lisieux, “The Little Flower” whose religious name was “St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face.” Contemplating His “hiddenness” and the Mystery of His having humbled Himself as He did by becoming a Child and by suffering for us is the source of St. Therese’s “Little Way” — her method of spiritual discipline that teaches us we don’t need to be great in the world’s terms in order to become a Saint. No matter where we are, no matter our talents or intellect, we can love. Hidden away herself, in her Norman convent, she wrote of the Prophet’s words

These words of Isaias: “He was without splendor, without beauty, His Face was hidden, as it were, and His person was not acknowledged”; one finds in them the whole foundation of my devotion to the Holy Face, or to say it better, the foundation of all my piety. I also desire myself to be without splendor, without beauty, to tread alone the wine in the press, unknown by every creature.

And later:

Jesus set the book of nature before me and I saw that all the flowers He has created are lovely. The splendor of the rose and the whiteness of the lily do not rob the little violet of its scent nor the daisy of its simple charm. I realized that if every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness and there would be no wildflowers to make the meadows gay.

It is just the same in the world of souls — which is the garden of Jesus. He has created the great saints who are like the lilies and the roses, but He has also created much lesser saints and they must be content to be the daisies or the violets which rejoice his eyes whenever He glances down. Perfection consists in doing His will, in being that which He wants us to be.

St. Therese did no one particular thing that one would point at and say, “See? Clearly she is a great Saint!” Her greatness was not in what she did so much as how she did it: with humility, with acceptance of suffering, and all for the love of Christ. She died of tuberculosis at the age of 24, telling a Sister a few months before her death that she would spend her Heaven doing good upon the earth, and that it will be like “a shower of roses.” She left behind her autobiography (“Story of a Soul”) and poetry and prayers, among which are her Canticle and Prayer to the Holy Face:

Canticle to the Holy Face
12 August 1895

Jesus, Your ineffable image
Is the star which guides my steps.
Ah, You know, Your sweet Face
Is for me Heaven on earth.
My love discovers the charms
Of Your Face adorned with tears.
I smile through my own tears
When I contemplate Your sorrows.

Oh! To console You I want
To live unknown on earth!
Your beauty, which You know how to veil,
Discloses for me all its mystery.
I would like to fly away to You!

Your Face is my only homeland.
It’s my Kingdom of love.
It’s my cheerful meadow.
Each day, my sweet sun.
It’s the Lily of the Valley
Whose mysterious perfume
Consoles my exiled soul,
Making it taste the peace of Heaven.

It’s my Rest, my Sweetness
And my melodious Lyre
Your Face, O my Sweet Savior,
Is the Divine Bouquet of Myrrh
I want to keep on my heart!

Your Face is my only wealth.
I ask for nothing more.
Hiding myself in it unceasingly,
I will resemble You, Jesus
Leave in me, the Divine Impress
Of Your features filled with sweetness,
And soon I’ll become holy.
I shall draw hearts to You.

So that I may gather
A beautiful golden harvest,
Deign to set me aflame with Your Fire.
With Your adorned mouth,
Give me soon the Eternal Kiss!

St. Theres’s Prayer to the Holy face

O Jesus, Who in Thy bitter Passion didst become “the most abject of men, a man of sorrows,” I venerate Thy Sacred Face whereon there once did shine the beauty and sweetness of the Godhead … but now it has become for me as if it were the Face of a leper! Nevertheless, under those disfigured features, I recognize Thy Infinite Love and I am consumed with the desire to love Thee and make Thee loved by all men.

The tears which well up abundantly in Thy Sacred Eyes appear to me as so many precious pearls that I love to gather up, in order to purchase the souls of poor sinners by means of their infinite value. O Jesus, Whose adorable Face ravished my heart, I implore Thee to fix deep within me Thy Divine Image and to set me on fire with Thy Love, that I may be found worthy to come to the contemplation of Thy glorious Face in Heaven. Amen.

Early 20th Century:
Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli

Sister Maria Pierina was inspired through visions of Our Lord and Lady to take up the work of spreading devotion to the Holy Face. Lord Christ told her, “I will that My Face, which reflects the intimate pains of my Spirit, the suffering and the love of My Heart, be more honoured. He who meditates upon Me, consoles Me.”

An image of a scapular bearing the likeness of the Face on the Holy Shroud was revealed to her by Our Lady, who told her, “This Scapular is an armour of defense, a shield of strength, a token of the love and mercy which Jesus wishes to give the world in these times of lust and hatred against God and His Church. Diabolical nets are thrown to wrench the Faith from hearts, evils abound, true apostles are few, and the remedy is the Holy Face of Jesus.” Our Lady said that all those who piously wear the image, make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament every Tuesday, if possible, to make reparation for the assaults against the Holy Face, and receive the Holy Eucharist every day will have a happy death under the loving gaze of her Son.

Sister Pierina set about to cast the image in the form of a medal, and after some struggle in gaining permission, found she had no money to have the medals cast. This last problem was remedied apparently miraculously: she found an envelope with the exact sum of money needed on her desk, seemingly from nowhere. After the medals were cast, the Evil One made known his displeasure. How could he not despise an image of the image left behind when Jesus walked away from His burial shroud? Enraged, Evil Spirit flung the medals around the room, and physically assaulted Sister Pierina. But he was defeated, and the practice of wearing the medals spread all over the world.

The obverse side of the medal bears the image of the Holy Face, as revealed by the Shroud of Turin. Surrounding it are the words of Psalm 66:2, “Illumina Domine Vultum Tuum super nos” (“Shew the light of Thy countenance, O Lord, upon us.”). On the back of the medal is a Sacred Host inscribed with the monogram of the Holy Name (“IHS”), surrounded by rays and the words, “Mane nobiscum Domine” (“Stay with us, O Lord”).

Sister Pierina died in 1945, a few years after having written in her diary, “I feel a deep longing to live always united to Jesus, to love Him intensely because my death can only be a transport of love with my Spouse, Jesus.”

The Human Face of Lord Christ

For your adoration, I provide you with a series of pictures of the Shroud of Turin: the Shroud as it appears to the naked eye, the Shroud as it appears in photgraphic negative, and an exquisite painting of Christ based closely on the Shroud’s image and painted by the Armenian artist, Ariel Agemian. I position these pictures so you can see them side by side, and then present the painting, englarged, so you can “look into the eyes of Christ.”

Beneath these pictures are the Shroud image and the Agemian painting on either side of an image of what the 12-year old Christ may have looked like as determined by the Italian police whose artists, in A.D. 2004, took the image of the Shroud and subtracted 20 years with methods used in police investigations.

In all of these images, you will see that, despite the Prophet’s words that “there is no beauty in Him, nor comeliness,” there is great beauty and comeliness indeed in the sweet and Holy Face of our Savior! This page may take some time to load…

“Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

Vespers of Passion Sunday

The two weeks of Passiontide begin today, the first week being known as “Passion Week,” and the second week being known as “Holy Week.”

This day — Passion Sunday, also known as Judica Sunday because of the Introit Júdica me (Psalm 42) — memorializes the increasing antipathy against Christ from the Jews who would not accept Him and accused Him of sorcery and of being blasphemous and possessed by a devil. After today and until Easter, the Júdica me and the Glória patris at the Introit and Lavabo are omitted from Masses of the Season. This signifies Christ’s hiding His glory from the world during these next few weeks as He hides Himself away from the Jews until the time has come for Him to enter into Jerusalem (commemorated on Palm Sunday) and to be crucified (commemorated on Good Friday) — after which comes the Resurrection on Easter.

Today statues, Crucifixes, and other sacred images (except for the Stations of the Cross) are veiled with purple cloth beginning at the Vespers of Passion Sunday, and they remain covered until the Gloria of Holy Saturday, at which point Lent ends and Eastertide begins — a most glorious, beautiful moment in the Church’s liturgy. Some Catholics cover statues and icons, etc., in their homes for the same time period (the cloth shouldn’t be transluscent or decorated in any way).

Like the disappearence of the Gloria, this veiling of the statues and icons stems from the Gospel reading of Passion Sunday (John 8:46-59), at the end of which the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus, leading Him to hide Himself away.

In Rome today, after Vespers, the veil used by St. Veronica to wipe the Face of Christ when He walked the Via Dolorossa (the Sorrowful Path) on His way to His Crucifixion is displayed for a few moments. The veil — known as the “veronica” — is kept hidden away in a special chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica, and only on Passion Sunday is it shown to the world as bells peal.

Reading

“The Mystery of Passiontide and Holy Week”
from Dom Gueranger’s “The Liturgical Year”

The holy liturgy is rich in mystery during these days of the Church’s celebrating the anniversaries of so many wonderful events; but as the principal part of these mysteries is embodied in the rites and ceremonies of the respective days, we shall give our explanations according as the occasion presents itself. Our object in the present chapter, is to say a few words respecting the general character of the mysteries of these two weeks.

We have nothing to add to the explanation, already given in our Lent, on the mystery of forty. The holy season of expiation continues its course until the fast of sinful man has imitated, in its duration, that observed by the Man-God in the desert. The army of Christ’s faithful children is still fighting against the invisible enemies of man’s salvation; they are still vested in their spiritual armour, and, aided by the angels of light, they are struggling hand to hand with the spirits of darkness, by compunction of heart and by mortification of the flesh.

As we have already observed, there are three objects which principally engage the thoughts of the Church during Lent. The Passion of our Redeemer, which we have felt to be coming nearer to us each week; the preparation of the catechumens for Baptism, which is to be administered to them on Easter eve; the reconciliation of the public penitents, who are to be readmitted into the Church on the Thursday, the day of the Last Supper. Each of these three object engages more and more the attention of the Church, the nearer she approaches the time of their celebration.

The miracle performed by our Savior almost at the very gates of Jerusalem, by which He restored Lazarus to life, has roused the fury of His enemies to the highest pitch of frenzy. The people’s enthusiasm has been excited by seeing him, who had been four days in the grave, walking in the streets of their city. They ask each other if the Messias, when He comes, can work greater wonders than these done by Jesus, and whether they ought not at once to receive this Jesus as the Messias, and sing their Hosanna to Him, for He is the Son of David. They cannot contain their feelings: Jesus enters Jerusalem, and they welcome Him as their King. The high priests and princes of the people are alarmed at this demonstration of feeling; they have no time to lose; they are resolved to destroy Jesus. We are going to assist at their impious conspiracy: the Blood of the just Man is to be sold, and the price put on it is thirty silver pieces. The divine Victim, betrayed by one of His disciples, is to be judged, condemned, and crucified. Every circumstance of this awful tragedy is to be put before us by the liturgy, not merely in words, but with all the expressiveness of a sublime ceremonial.

The catechumens have but a few more days to wait for the fount that is to give them life. Each day their instruction becomes fuller; the figures of the old Law are being explained to them; and very little now remains for them to learn with regard to the mysteries of salvation. The Symbol of faith is soon to be delivered to them. Initiated into the glories and the humiliations of the Redeemer, they will await with the faithful the moment of His glorious Resurrection; and we shall accompany them with our prayers and hymns at that solemn hour, when, leaving the defilements of sin in the life-giving waters of the font, they shall come forth pure and radiant with innocence, be enriched with the gifts of the holy Spirit, and be fed with the divine flesh of the Lamb that liveth for ever.

The reconciliation of the penitents, too, is close at hand. Clothed in sackcloth and ashes, they are continuing their work of expiation. The Church has still several passages from the saved Scriptures to read to them, which, like those we have already heard during the last few weeks, will breathe consolation and refreshment to their souls. The near approach of the day when the Lamb is to be slain increases their hope, for they know that the Blood of this Lamb is of infinite worth, and can take away the sins of the whole world. Before the day of Jesus’ Resurrection, they will have recovered their lost innocence; their pardon will come in time to enable them, like the penitent prodigal, to join in the great Banquet of that Thursday, when Jesus will say to His guests: ‘ With desire have I desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer.’

Such are the sublime subjects which are about to be brought before us: but, at the same time, we shall see our holy mother the Church mourning, like a disconsolate widow, and sad beyond all human grief Hitherto she has been weeping over the sins of her children; now she bewails the death of her divine Spouse. The joyous Alleluia has long since been hushed in her canticles; she is now going to suppress another expression, which seems too glad for a time line the present. Partially, at first, but entirely during the last three days, she is about to deny herself the use of that formula, which is so dear to her: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. There is an accent of jubilation in these words, which would ill suit her grief and the mournfulness of the rest of her chants.

Her lessons, for the night Office, are taken from Jeremias, the prophet of lamentation above all others. The colour of her vestments is the one she had on when she assembled us at the commencement of Lent to sprinkle us with ashes; but when the dreaded day of Good Friday comes, purple would not sufficiently express the depth of her grief; she will clothe herself in black, as men do when mourning the death of a fellow-mortal; for Jesus, her Spouse, is to be put to death on that day: the sins of mankind and the rigours of the divine justice are then to weigh him down, and in all the realities of a last agony, He is to yield up His Soul to His Father.

The presentiment of that awful hour leads the afflicted mother to veil the image of her Jesus: the gross is hidden from the eyes of the faithful. The statues of the saints, too, are covered; for it is but just that, if the glory of the Master be eclipsed, the servant should not appear. The interpreters of the liturgy tell us that this ceremony of veiling the crucifix during Passiontide, expresses the humiliation to which our Savior subjected Himself, of hiding Himself when the Jews threatened to stone Him, as is related in the Gospel of Passion Sunday. The Church begins this solemn rite with the Vespers of the Saturday before Passion Sunday. Thus it is that, in those years when the feast of our Lady’s Annunciation falls in Passion-week, the statue of Mary, the Mother of God, remains veiled, even on that very day when the Archangel greets her as being full of grace, and blessed among women.

God Created Everything and Deserves The Best. That is Why Traditional Catholic Use of Gold and Silver

God has created gold, silver, diamonds and jewels. Since we appreciate who God is and what He has generously given to us, we want to use the Best for Him. Rich people have the best jewelry and things. Queen Elizabeth has a great deal of gold and jewelry. Should we not show our love and respect for God by also using the best materials for Him.

When we use the best materials for the Chalice, Paten, Ciborium and Pyx, we show our respect for Jesus (God) truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. But since Vatican II, we Catholics have began to use cheap material such as pewter, glass, wood and stone for Chalices and Patens, and therefore we see the respect for God diminishing.

It seems like an insignificant and unimportant matter. But again, as we become cheap and careless in the surroundings of the Blessed Sacrament, we appreciate it less and less.

Before Vatican II all chalices and patens were made of Gold or Silver that was Gold plated. If in the case of emergency(war, persecution) or extreme poverty, they were allowed to be made of a cheaper metal, as long as they had a good Gold plating on them. The cup part of the Chalice was usually Gold or Silver with Gold plating. The stem could be other metal as long as it was Gold plated. It was forbidden to use glass, wood, copper or brass.

Before the Chalice and Paten could be used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they had to be consecrated by the bishop who also anointed them with the Holy Chrism. If they were used in any profane way (as a cup to drink something else, heretics used them), became deformed like in a fire or accident, have become cracked so that the Precious Blood may leak out (Chalice) or the particles of the Host could fall through (Paten), were sold, they automatically lost their consecration.

From the Canon Law of 1917 we find these rules concerning the mere touching of the sacred things.

1149. Care must be taken that the chalice and paten, and unwashed purificators, palls and corporals, are not touched except by clerics or those who have the custody of these utensils. (Sacristans were given permission by the priests to handle the paten and chalice with a cloth so that their hands did not come in contact with the consecrated items).

The purificators, palls and corporals used in the Holy Mass shall not be given to lay persons, even religious, to be washed until they have first been washed by a cleric in major orders; the water of the first washing shall be poured into the sacrarium, or, if there is none, into the fire. (Canon 1306.)

When it came to the Ciborium and Pyx, that held the Blessed Sacrament after the Holy Mass, they were to be made of Gold or Silver, but could also be of copper, but always gold plated where the Sacred Host would be in contact with the metal. These two items had to be blessed and not consecrated by a bishop. They could never be made out of glass or Ivory. These item were not used in the Sacred Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

The Ciborium (when the Host were present) was to be covered by a white veil made from precious material.

In my diocese, Glass or Pewter vessels were used at all of the diocesan events. All over the world, bishops and priests use cheap chalices and patens made out of so many different materials.

Here is the Present Norms for Here in the United States found on the USCCB Web Site:

III. Sacred Vessels

327. Among the requisites for the celebration of Mass, the sacred vessels are held in special honor, and among these especially the chalice and paten, in which the bread and wine are offered and consecrated and from which they are consumed.

328. Sacred vessels should be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, they should generally be gilded on the inside.

329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials which in the common estimation in each region are considered precious or noble, for example, ebony or other harder woods, provided that such materials are suitable for sacred use. In this case, preference is always to be given to materials that do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels that are intended to hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and others of this kind.

330. As regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood of the Lord, they are to have a bowl of material that does not absorb liquids. The base, on the other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials.

331. For the Consecration of hosts, a large paten may fittingly be used, on which is placed the bread both for the Priest and the Deacon and also for the other ministers and for the faithful.

332. As regards the form of the sacred vessels, it is for the artist to fashion them in a manner that is more particularly in keeping with the customs of each region, provided the individual vessels are suitable for their intended liturgical use and are clearly distinguishable from vessels intended for everyday use.

333. As for the blessing of sacred vessels, the rites prescribed in the liturgical books should be followed.[135]

334. The practice should be kept of building in the sacristy a sacrarium into which is poured the water from the washing of sacred vessels and linens
(cf. no. 280).

As you can clearly see, it starts with what came before Vatican II and then allows a great variety of materials to be used. And even though this is the rule, many bishops and priests do what ever they want.

So again, simple little things make a difference. May we traditional Catholics do the extra, out of respect for who God is. He gave us all these beautiful materials for our enjoyment and pleasure. It is only right that we give back a small token of gratitude for Him by using the best possible for Him. And the noble dignity reminds us of who is the King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

Since the Catholic Church is 2000 years old, we have also learned that Gold never tarnishes and keeps its purity. Other metals tend to tarnish or rust. So when we have Gold or gold plated sacred vessels, they maintain their dignity and beauty.

Lovers give very expensive gifts to each other. We Love God So We Give Him The Best Too

Father Carota

The original author of this blog passed away in July of 2016. RIP Father Carota.

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/02/01/god-created-everything-and-deserves-the-best-that-is-why-traditional-catholic-use-of-gold-and-silver/

New Liturgical Movement

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 2018

How Contrary Orientations Signify Contradictory Theologies

PETER KWASNIEWSKI

Catholics who delve into serious discussions of liturgy, wishing perhaps to know what all the fuss is about, quickly discover that one of the hottest of hot-button questions, and in some ways the most important, is the orientation of the liturgy. What is the big deal about the direction the priest happens to be facing at Mass? [1]

For starters, the custom of all Christians either offering or participating in the Eucharistic liturgy facing East has the same apostolic roots and the same universality in Church history as the use of water baptism, the praying of the Psalms, the worship of the risen Christ on Sunday, the veneration of the Mother of God and the saints, and of their relics. As a matter of fact, eastward orientation predates the use of official priestly vestments, consecrated church buildings, and even the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that we recite every Sunday. Does that make it old enough and widespread enough to take seriously? If not, why do we take the other things seriously? They should be just as dispensable, or more so.

Think of it this way: Would you, if you are a practicing Catholic, want Sunday to be abolished, replaced by another day of the week, or simply taken off the roster? That would be an unthinkable deviation from Christian practice. Would you want all the Psalms removed from the Mass and the Divine Office? Should we replace water baptism with a civil naming ceremony, or stop honoring our Blessed Mother because it might make us feel like immature children or offend anti-maternal feminists? Have priests celebrating in jeans and T-shirts, because that’s the common clothing of our day, as robes and cloaks were the common clothing of ancient times? Impossible! It cannot be that something we have done for millennia should suddenly be dropped.

But this is exactly what we have done with ad orientem worship. For nearly 2,000 years, clergy and faithful together faced in the same direction in expectation of Christ and in adoration of Him, the One who already comes in mystery in the Most Holy Eucharist, the One who is to come manifestly at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire.

Ad orientem preserves the eschatological orientation of the liturgy. When Christians first gathered on Sundays to worship the Lord, they were anticipating the second coming of Christ — this seems to be the very oldest characteristic of our corporate worship. As Dom Gregory Dix notes, the “primordial form” of Sunday was not so much a feast looking back to the resurrection of Christ on the first Easter, or to any particular mystery or moment of His earthly life, but rather a looking forward with longing to the Lord’s return in glory, imploring Him to deliver us from the evils of sin, death, and hell. Sunday Mass was about the life of the world to come, which the early Christians, suffering bitter and horrific trials, must have thought about a great deal as they hoped and prayed that they would remain faithful: “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” [2] For this reason, the eastward focus of prayer was a poignant symbol: after the dark and cold night, the sun will rise gloriously on the eastern horizon, shedding light and warmth.

Not to mention all the Scripture passages, repeatedly commented on by the Church Fathers, that either call Christ “the East”, or say that He ascends to the East, or that He will come from the East (cf., inter alia, Ps. 67, 34; Acts 1, 10–11; Mt. 24, 27; Zech. 6, 11–12). [3]

In turning the priest towards the people, we decisively severed ourselves from that which was most ancient, most intrinsic, and most distinctive in our worship as Christians. When we return to ad orientem, we return decisively to the fundamentals of Christian faith and its original practice. Ironically, in adopting the novelty of versus populum — a supposed “return to the earliest practice” in the judgment of mid-20th century scholars, whose conclusions have all been overturned by the work of subsequent scholars — we ended up losing the most ancient element of all.

It is not hard to see why this custom should have been nearly convertible with Christian worship as such. Most simply, worship is about God, not about us. Or rather, it is about us only insofar as we are from God, in God, and for God, our Creator, Savior, Sanctifier, and Judge. Hence, even to the extent that, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, the liturgy is for our needs, since God who is infinitely good stands to gain nothing for Himself, it is still done for the love and praise and thanking of God,who is the source and fulfillment of our needs. Our need, in short, is FOR GOD; our deepest need is to go beyond ourselves into Him. The very purpose of worship is to take ourselves out of ourselves and establish us in God. In this sense, any aspect of liturgy that does not clearly terminate in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or any aspect that seems to terminate in us, is not liturgy, whatever else it may be (e.g., self-regard, social posturing, therapy, superstition).

Hence, the ad orientem stance simply expresses the act of worship as such, whereas the versus populum stance contradicts it outright. This is why it is not merely unfitting but antithetical to religion. [4] The theologian Max Thurien, writing (somewhat surprisingly) in the official Vatican journal Notitiae, observed, in a statement that anticipated Ratzinger’s similar and more famous remark in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

The whole celebration [of Mass] is often conducted as if it were a conversation and dialogue in which there is no longer room for adoration, contemplation, and silence. The fact that the celebrants and faithful constantly face each other closes the liturgy in on itself. [5]

Along the same lines, the papal master of ceremonies Guido Marini remarked at a conference in Rome:

In our time, the expression “celebrating facing the people” has entered our common vocabulary. … [S]uch an expression would be categorically unacceptable the moment it comes to express a theological proposition. Theologically speaking, the holy Mass, as a matter of fact, is always addressed to God through Christ our Lord, and it would be a grievous error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is the community. Such an orientation, therefore, of turning towards the Lord must animate the interior participation of each individual during the liturgy. It is likewise equally important that this orientation be quite visible in the liturgical sign as well. [6]

Marini helps us to see not only that the object of liturgy should always be God, or the God-man Jesus Christ, never mere man, but also that this objective orientation (we cannot avoid the East even in our ordinary way of speaking!) should be visible,evident to the senses, easily grasped by the intellect, and easily translated into the movement of the will that we call love, which is ordered to the good — to a good outside of ourselves, in the case of our ultimate end.

I will characterize the contrast between the contradictory postures in terms of their subject/object signification.

In the ad orientem arrangement, the subject/object appears as man/God. The priest both looks and acts like an image of Christ, the mediator between God and man. Paradoxically, the ceremonial centrality of the priest in the old rite serves to emphasize that God is the one and only object of worship, since the priest is so obviously assimilated to his office as alter Christus.

In the versus populum arrangement, the subject/object appears as people/priest. The priest, even with the best of intentions and behavior, looks and acts like an empowered facilitator of a communal event; the vis-à-vis positioning confers on him a sort of autocratic prominence as the one to whom the congregation is subordinated and beholden. This may be the psychological reason why some priests overcompensate with informality, jokes, banter, smiles, waves, applause, or what have you — the priest’s very “over-againstness” in versus populum seems to demand a downplaying of the over-against by means of emphasizing that he’s really “one of us,” after all! How sad that the one true and obvious way of representing that the priest is “one of us” — namely, by having him face in the same direction as everyone else and offer the sacrifice on their behalf, the very same sacrifice they are offering in the hearts — has been discarded as an opaque and expired symbol, to be replaced by a format that turns the Mass into something done towards the people and, in a sense, imposed upon them. In reality, the Mass is something Jesus Christ according to His human nature does towards the Most Holy Trinity, as the great prayer “Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas” perfectly expresses — and we are permitted to join in.

Ironically for a rite that is supposed to be less clericocentric and more popular, the priest in the new rite becomes far more central and attention-getting because his personality, his “vernacular style” or “way of being a priest,” intrudes. Versus populum does nothing but underline this unfortunate amplification of human presidency at the cost of assimilation to Christ’s kenosis and unique mediation.

Kathleen Pluth brilliantly captures the problem and the solution. Having said that she hates being a cause of distraction to others by cantoring in the front of a church and that she much prefers finding refuge in a choir loft (singers should be heard and not seen), she then turns to the celebrant of the Mass:

The role of the priest is exponentially more complex. He cannot hide. His role is inherently, and in some regards primarily, visible, leading the congregation through the veil, into the Holy of Holies. We follow him, as he expresses in the highest possible way his conformity to Jesus, our advocate before the Father. For centuries the symbolism of our “following” the priest was clear. However, in the postconciliar period, and without a direct referrent in the Council’s documents themselves, the character of the priest’s relationship to the people has been visibly distorted by the versus populum posture.
When people face each other, they aim to please. They make eye contact; they smile encouragingly. There is a word for such gestures: flattery. People flatter their priests and their priests flatter them, at an average ratio of, say, 500 to 1. None of this is encouraged in the Council documents. The versus populum posture is specifically worldly. It sets up the priest, not as a model to follow, but as a talk show host to be flattered insofar as he delights us. There are no good reasons for this.
The lines of sight to God should be made clear in the Liturgy (see Pseudo-Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy for a beautiful exposition of how this should work), but instead our path towards God is obscured by the distracting cycle of eye-contact and feedback. The Sunday liturgy is for everyone their primary and for many their only contact with the Church. As such, its symbols should express the truth, including the truth about ecclesial relationships, which should not be a matter of flattery but of service. The Psalmist sings, “Let your priests be clothed with holiness/The faithful shall ring out their joy.” Ad orientem posture lets priests be priests and the people be themselves too, all facing God together.[7]

Accordingly, it was much to the devil’s advantage to turn the priest around to the people, creating a charmed circle of neighborly affirmation that brought the experience of the Mass down to the level of a horizontal exchange, a back-and-forth in everyday speech. There is nothing transcendent about that; on the contrary, God is domesticated, tamed, manipulable — not a recipient of sacrifice but a subject of conversation.

In the Western context, moreover, where the use of a sacral language had been the nearly universal and exceptionless practice for most of the Church’s history, the sudden introduction of the vernacular — until recently, a bland and boorish vernacular, at that — contributed to this serpentine leveling as well. Ad orientem, use of Latin and plainchant, and kneeling for communion are simple but potent ways to repudiate the democratic horizontalism that has afflicted the liturgy for the past fifty years. The dismantling of these things — the removal of communion rails, the practice of communion standing (again, I speak within the Western experience as it developed over the second millennium), the reception of communion in the hand, the abolition of the acolyte with the paten, and so forth — all of these are consistent with a larger perspective of the warping of the act of worship into an act of precipitous self-esteem, one that is hauntingly reminiscent of the scenario played out in the Garden of Eden.

NOTES

[1] Of course, this topic has been taken up many times at NLM, but there are always more angles from which to pursue it, and we will never leave it alone. Here are some earlier articles: “Why Does Facing Ad Orientem Matter?”; “The Marian Character of Ad Orientem Worship”; “The Priestly Character of Ad Orientem Worship”; “Fr. Dwight Longenecker on Worship Ad Orientem”; “The Normativity of Ad Orientem Worship According to the Ordinary Form’s Rubrics.”

[2] See Dom Daniel Augustine Oppenheimer, “Towards the Second Coming: Facing the Liturgical East.”

[3] All these texts and more, with good commentary, may be found in this article: “Convertere, Israël, ad Dominum Deum Tuum!: A Benedictine Monk Defends Worshiping Eastwards.”

[4] This argument is developed at greater length in my article “Mass ‘Facing the People’ as Counter-Catechesis and Irreligion.”

[5] Max Thurian, “La Liturgie, contemplation du mystère,” Notitiae 32 (1996), 692; reprinted in English in L’Osservatore Romano, 24 June 1996, p. 2.

[6] The full text may be found here.

[7] The article may be found here.

The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The following essay is Chapter Three of The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, former prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, later to become Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Ratzinger summarizes the argument for the traditional celebration of the sacred liturgy facing liturgical East (“ad orientem“).

The re-shaping so far described, of the Jewish synagogue for the purpose of Christian worship, clearly shows – as we have already said – how, even in architecture, there is both continuity and newness in the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. As a consequence, expression in space had to be given to the properly Christian act of worship, the celebration of the Eucharist, together with the ministry of the Word, which is ordered towards that celebration. Plainly, further developments became not only possible but necessary. A place set aside for Baptism had to be found. The Sacrament of Penance went through a long process of development, which resulted in changes to the form of the church building. Popular piety in its many different forms inevitably found expression in the place dedicated to divine worship. The question of sacred images had to be resolved. Church music had to be fitted into the spatial structure. We saw that the architectural canon for the liturgy of Word and Sacrament is not a rigid one, though with every new development and re-ordering the question has to be posed: what is in harmony with the essence of the liturgy, and what detracts from it? In the very form of its places of divine worship, which we have just been considering, Christianity, speaking and thinking in a Semitic way, has laid down principles by which this question can be answered. Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again. Here both the fidelity to the gift already bestowed and the dynamism of going forward are given equal expression.

The Orientation of Worship and God’s Omnipresence

Modern man has little understanding of this “orientation.” Judaism and Islam, now as in the past, take it for granted that we should pray towards the central place of revelation, to the God who has revealed himself to us, in the manner and in the place in which he revealed himself. By contrast, in the Western world, an abstract way of thinking, which in a certain way is the fruit of Christian influence, has become dominant. God is spiritual, and God is everywhere: does that not mean that prayer is not tied to a particular place or direction?

Now we can indeed pray everywhere, and God is accessible to us everywhere. This idea of the universality of God is a consequence of Christian universality, of the Christian’s looking up to God above all gods, the God who embraces the cosmos and is more intimate to us than we are to ourselves. But our knowledge of this universality is the fruit of revelation: God has shown himself to us. Only for this reason do we know him, only for this reason can we confidently pray to him everywhere. And precisely for this reason is it appropriate, now as in the past, that we should express in Christian prayer our turning to the God who has revealed himself to us. Just as God assumed a body and entered the time and space of this world, so it is appropriate to prayer – at least to communal liturgical prayer – that our speaking to God should be “incarnational,” that it should be Christological, turned through the incarnate Word to the Triune God. The cosmic symbol of the rising sun expresses the universality of God above all particular places and yet maintains the concreteness of divine revelation. Our praying is thus inserted into the procession of the nations to God.

The Church’s Living Altar

But what about the altar? In what direction should we pray during the Eucharistic liturgy? In Byzantine church buildings the structure just described was essentially retained, but in Rome a somewhat different arrangement developed. The bishop’s chair was shifted to the center of the apse, and so the altar was moved into the nave. This seems to have been the case in the Lateran basilica and in St. Mary Major well into the ninth century. However, in St. Peter’s, during the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great (590-604), the altar was moved nearer to the bishop’s chair, probably for the simple reason that he was supposed to stand as much as possible above the tomb of St. Peter. This was an outward and visible expression of the truth that we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Lord in the Communion of Saints, a communion spanning all the times and ages. The custom of erecting an altar above the tombs of the martyrs probably goes back a long way and is an outcome of the same motivation. Throughout history the martyrs continue Christ’s self-oblation; they are like the Church’s living altar, made not of stones but of men, who have become members of the Body of Christ and thus express a new kind of cultus: sacrifice is humanity becoming love with Christ.

The ordering of St. Peter’s was then copied, so it would seem, in many other stational churches in Rome. For the purposes of this discussion, we do not need to go into the disputed details of this process. The controversy in our own century was triggered by another innovation. Because of topographical circumstances, it turned out that St. Peter’s faced west. Thus, if the celebrating priest wanted – as the Christian tradition of prayer demands – to face east, he had to stand behind the people and look – this is the logical conclusion – towards the people. For whatever reason it was done, one can also see this arrangement in a whole series of church buildings within St. Peter’s direct sphere of influence.

The liturgical renewal in our own century took up this alleged model and developed from it a new idea for the form of the liturgy. The Eucharist – so it was said – had to be celebrated versus populum (towards the people). The altar – as can be seen in the normative model of St. Peter’s – had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone – so it was said – was compatible with the meaning of the Christian liturgy, with the requirement of active participation. This alone conformed to the primordial model of the Last Supper.

These arguments seemed in the end so persuasive that after the Council (which says nothing about “turning to the people”) new altars were set up everywhere, and today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a re-ordering that not only signifies a new external arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the essence of the liturgy –the liturgy as a communal meal.

Misunderstanding the Meaning of the Meal

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table (Liturgy and Architecture, pp. 53-54).In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the “shape” of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term “meal.” True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which he commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into worship of God that is in harmony with logos.

Thus it came to pass that the synagogue liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ’s Death and Resurrection to become the “Eucharist,” and precisely thus was fidelity to the command “Do this” fulfilled. This new and all-encompassing form of worship could not be derived simply from the meal, but had to be defined through the interconnection of Temple and synagogue, Word and Sacrament, cosmos and history. It expresses itself in the very form that we discovered in the liturgical structure of the early Churches in the world of Semitic Christianity. It also, of course, remained fundamental for Rome. Once again let me quote Bouyer:

Never and nowhere before [that is, before the sixteenth century] have we any indication that any importance, or even attention, was given to whether the priest should celebrate with the people before him or behind him Professor Cyrille Vogel has recently demonstrated it, the only thing ever insisted upon, or even mentioned, was that he should say the eucharistic prayer, as all the other prayers, facing East . . . Even when the orientation of the church enabled the celebrant to pray turned toward the people, when at the altar, we must not forget that it was not the priest alone who, then, turned East: it was the whole congregation, together with him” (pp. 55-56).Unprecedented Clericalism and the Self-Enclosed Circle

Admittedly, these connections were obscured or fell into total oblivion in the church buildings and liturgical practice of the modern age. This is the only explanation for the fact that the common direction of prayer of priest and people got labeled as “celebrating towards the wall” or “turning your back on the people” and came to seem absurd and totally unacceptable. And this alone explains why the meal – even in modern pictures – became the normative idea of liturgical celebration for Christians. In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest – the “presider,” as they now prefer to call him – becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.

Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make their own contribution.” Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern.”

The turning of the priest towards the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself. The common turning towards the East was not a “celebration towards the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “towards the Lord.” As one of the Fathers of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, J. A. Jungmann, put it, it was much more a question of priest and people facing in the same direction, knowing that together they were in a procession towards the Lord. They did not close themselves into a circle, they did not gaze at one another, but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us.

But is this not all romanticism and nostalgia for the past? Can the original form of Christian prayer still say something to us today, or should we try to find our own form, a form for our own times? Of course, we cannot simply replicate the past. Every age must discover and express the essence of the liturgy anew. The point is to discover this essence amid all the changing appearances. It would surely be a mistake to reject all the reforms of our century wholesale. When the altar was very remote from the faithful, it was right to move it back to the people. In cathedrals this made possible the recovery of the tradition of the altar at the crossing, the meeting-point of the nave and the presbyterium. It was also important clearly to distinguish the place for the Liturgy of the Word from the place for the strictly Eucharistic liturgy. For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer does make sense. In the Psalm the hearer internalizes what he has heard, takes it into himself, and transforms it into prayer, so that it becomes a response.

Turning to the East Essential

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer.

Häussling has leveled several objections at these ideas of mine, which I have presented before. The first I have just touched on. These ideas are alleged to be a romanticism for the old ways, a misguided longing for the past. It is said to be odd that I should speak only of Christian antiquity and pass over the succeeding centuries. Coming as it does from a liturgical scholar, this objection is quite remarkable. As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way.

On the other hand, it is important and necessary to see that we cannot take as our norm the ancient in itself and as such, nor must we automatically write off later developments as alien to the original form of the liturgy. There can be a thoroughly living kind of development in which a seed at the origin of something ripens and bears fruit. We shall have to come back to this idea in a moment. But in our case, as we have said, what is at issue is not a romantic escape into antiquity, but a recovery of something essential, in which Christian liturgy expresses its permanent orientation. Of course, Häussling thinks that turning to the east, toward the rising sun, is something that nowadays we just cannot bring into the liturgy. Is that really the case? Are we today really hopelessly huddled in our own little circle? Is it not important, precisely today, to find room for the dimension of the future, for hope in the Lord who is to come again, to recognize again, indeed to live, the dynamism of the new creation as an essential form of the liturgy?

Other Objections

Another objection is that we do not need to look towards the East, towards the crucifix – that, when priest and faithful look at one another, they are looking at the image of God in man, and so facing one another is the right direction for prayer. I find it hard to believe that the famous critic thought this was a serious argument. For we do not see the image of God in man in such a simplistic way. The “image of God” in man is not, of course, something that we can photograph or see with a merely photographic kind of perception. We can indeed see it, but only with the new seeing of faith. We can see it, just as we can see the goodness in a man, his honesty, interior truth, humility, love – everything, in fact, that gives him a certain likeness to God. But if we are to do this, we must learn a new kind of seeing, and that is what the Eucharist is for.

A more important objection is of the practical order. Ought we really to be rearranging everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the liturgy than a constant activism, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal. I see a solution in a suggestion that comes from the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing east, as we heard, was linked with the “sign of the Son of Man,” with the Cross, which announces the Lord’s Second Coming. That is why very early on the east was linked with the sign of the Cross. Where a direct common turning towards the east is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior “east” of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community. In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: “Conversi ad Dominum,” “Turn to the Lord!” In this way we look together at the One whose death tore the veil of the Temple – the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in his arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than the Lord? This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there can be a cross of the Passion, which represents the suffering Lord who for us let his side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of the Second Coming and guides our eyes towards it. For it is always the one Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).

ON THE NEW RITE OF ORDINATIONTHE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASSIS NOTTHE ONLY SACRED RITE CHANGED SINCE VATICAN IIBy Father Kevin Vaillancourt, Editor, The Catholic VoiceNot long ago, I celebrated my tenth anniversary as a Roman Catholic priest. There are many memories of that blessed day. It has been nice to review the pictures of the ceremonies and to recall the moment of ordination when I was made a priest of God. It was at that time I was given the power to offer Holy Mass, to bless, and to forgive sins. I remember with special joy my first blessing given as a priest. It was bestowed on my parents.

In order to enkindle some of the spark I received on that day, I took some time in the stillness of my parish church to review the ordination ceremonies. The wording of that holy rite is truly inspiring. In a sermon for my anniversary Mass I reviewed with my parishioners the meaning of those words. I also reviewed with them the mutilated form of the ordination rite in the novus ordo church. The differences are not just striking in what the words do or do not say, they are shocking and even worrisome.

CHANGES HERE TOO

Why did the Innovators find it necessary to change everything sacred in the Church? Tampering with the Mass was not their only nefarious deed. They left us an empty shell of worship of God by taking away the Sacrifice of the Mass and replacing it with the Abomination of Desolation. Their efforts produced a liturgy with severely doubtful validity all the while destroying the sacred tradition of Latin as the official language of the Church. They didn’t stop here. A major butcher-job was done on the Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood. Since most people rarely see an ordination, the seriousness of this has perhaps gone largely undetected. We cannot be silent about it any longer.

By 1967 the novus ordo was introduced and the Tridentine Latin Mass was abolished. Major announcements were made and most of us sat by as we watched our Mass being destroyed. Do you know the date of the change in the sacramental rites? Perhaps not. There were no announcements made, no write-ups in parish bulletins or diocesan papers. The new Roman Pontifical was made official in 1978. It was prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), the same group responsible for the changes in the Mass. In Chapter Eleven we find the new rite of Ordination Of A Priest. In twelve pages of wide-spaced type, one can read how a man is made a priest in the new rite. The modern ordination is simplified to the extreme. If it is stretched out with singing and a sermon it could probably take about an hour. My ordination took nearly three.

Besides reducing the wording of ceremonies, they have also taken some of the preparatory orders away. As of 1978, Tonsure was eliminated and the only Minor Orders are Lector and Acolyte. From here the candidate for the modern priesthood jumps to the Diaconate and then to the Priesthood. Abolished also is the Order of Subdiaconate. Tonsure, Porter, Exorcist and Subdiaconate were not superfluous steps to the priesthood. Each communicated a future responsibility that the candidate would face as a priest. Why was it necessary for them to be eliminated? Hasn’t the new rite cheapened the respect the new candidate should have for the priesthood?

ESSENCE OF ORDINATION MEANING MISSING

Why is a man made a priest in the Catholic Church? The chief reason is to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The traditional rite explains this clearly. In the words of the bishop to the ordinand, the office of the priesthood is explained according to the traditional understanding of what we know a priest should be:

“Dearly beloved son, as you are now about to be consecrated to the office of the Priesthood, endeavor to receive it worthily, and when you have received it, to fulfill its duties blamelessly. The Priest is ordained to offer Sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize. With great awe should one advance to so high a state….”

Here is how the office of the Priesthood is explained by the bishop according to the 1978 rite: “My son, you are now to advance to the order of the prebyterate. You must apply your energies to the duty of teaching in the name of Christ, the chief Teacher. Share with mankind the word of God you have received with joy. Meditate on the law of God, believe what you read, teach what you believe, and put into practice what you teach. . . . In the memorial of the Lord’s death and resurrection, make every effort to die to sin and to walk in the new life of Christ.”

There is no subtle difference here. The Catholic priesthood is to be distinguished from any other ministry because it is a sacrificing priesthood. The Catholic priest offers up the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. He offers God back to God for the good of mankind. Holy Mass is not merely a memorial of the Lord’s death, nor does the Mass have anything to do with Christ’s Resurrection. The essence of the priesthood — that it was established to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, the unbloody renewal of Calvary — is missing from the new rite. This is important as we consider a point later in the ceremonies.

THE FORM OF THE RITE

From the catechism we know that all Sacraments must have proper matter, form and intention. If any of these is defective, there is no Sacrament. For example, to attempt to baptize with motor oil would be invalid because oil is improper matter for baptism. Even if the proper words are used and the minister has the proper intention, there would be no Sacrament of Baptism because there was improper matter (one of the three essential elements) used. It was oil and not water.

By the intention necessary for each Sacrament is usually meant what is expressed or implied by the minister of the Sacrament. In the new ordination rite, the intention of the bishop has already been seen in his address to the candidate. Another important consideration is the intention of the recipient. For all Sacraments except the Holy Eucharist, the intention of the recipient can also block the validity of that Sacrament. In the 1978 rite, the intention of the candidate is publicly proclaimed in a question and answer form from bishop to candidate. See if you can read where the candidate declares that he is receiving the sacrificing priesthood:

“Bishop: My son, before you proceed to the order of presbyterate, declare before the people your intention to undertake this priestly office. Are you resolved, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to discharge without fail the office of the priesthood in the presbyteral order as a conscientious fellow worker with the bishops in caring for the Lord’sflock?

“Candidate: I am.

“Bishop: Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed them down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of Christ’s people?

“Candidate: I am.

“Bishop: Are you resolved to exercise the ministry of the word worthily and wisely, preaching the Gospel and explaining the catholic faith?

“Candidate: I am.

“Bishop: Are you resolved to consecrate your life to God for the salvation of his people, and to unite yourself more closely every day to Christ the High Priest, who offered Himself for us to the Father as a perfect sacrifice? “Candidate: I am. THE FORM ALSO IS CHANGED

To this point we have reviewed the expressed intention for which a man is ordained. The matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the imposition of hands by the bishop on the ordinand. This is done in silence and is one of the most inspiring parts of the ceremony. The traditional rite and that of 1978 are the same on at this point. But the form of the Sacrament is different.

In 1948, Pope Pius XII defined once and for all which words of the traditional ceremony are to be considered the essential form. Changing these in any way would invalidate the Sacrament. It is important to note that the pope never changed the word s. He defined the words that were already in the ceremonial for many centuries. The form of the Sacrament in the traditional ceremony is:

“Grant, we implore Thee, almighty Father, to this Thy servant the dignity of the Priesthood, renew within him the spirit of holiness, that he may keep the rank in Thy service which he has received from Thee, and by his conduct afford a pattern of holy living.

“The form in the 1978 rite is: Hear us, Lord our God, and pour out upon this servant of yours the blessing of the Holy Spirit and the grace of the power of the priesthood. In your sight we offer this man for ordination: support him with your unfailing love. We ask this through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

“The nature of the priesthood is that which is explained in the publicly expressed intention of the bishop. To which form of the priesthood is the candidate ordained in either ceremony?

FURTHER MISSING ELEMENTS

After the candidate is made a priest, he receives the uniform of his office. The 1978 form calls for the bishop to arrange the stole of the newly ordained and place the chasuble on him without any prayers. The traditional rite uses these prayers:

“For the Stole: Receive the yoke of the Lord, for His yoke is sweet, and His burden light.

“For the Chasuble: Receive the priestly vestment whereby charity is signified; for God is well able to give thee an increase of charity and its perfect works.

Next the hands of the newly ordained are anointed with oil. The traditional rite has the bishop say:

“Be pleased, O Lord, to consecrate and hallow these hands by this anointing and our blessing That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and hallowed, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The 1978 rite: “The Father annointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God.

Next the traditional rite has the bishop present a chalice containing wine and water to the newly ordained upon which is placed a paten with an unconsecrated host. As the ordinandi touch these, these words are said by the bishop:

“Receive the power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

The 1978 rite has none of these prayers.

Lastly, toward the end of the Ordination Mass in the traditional ceremony, the bishop lays his hands upon the ordinandi saying: “Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.”

Following this the bishop unfolds the chasuble saying:

“The Lord clothe thee with the robe of innocence.”

The 1978 rite has neither of these prayers.

The 1978 rite is conspicuous for what is missing, especially in some of the essential wording of the ceremony. The priesthood in the modern church is proceeding along a decidedly different path than that which the Church has taken for centuries.

Just where will that path lead us all?

Why does the Priest veil his hands during Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament?

by Dr Taylor Marshall

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

offered by the Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict XVI

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is one of the most beautiful devotions of the Catholic Church. I wish that this devotion would become popular again on Sunday evenings. What a beautiful way to complete the Lord’s Day.

Some readers here are not Catholic, so let us briefly explain what is meant by Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

The Latin word benedictio is formed by two words: bene (well) and dictio (speaking). To speak well over something. In English, we translate benedictio word as “blessing.” By the way, a malediction is a “bad speaking” or a curse.

In the Catholic Church, there is a tradition that Christ made the blessing of the sign of the cross over the Immaculate Mary and the Holy Apostles just before He ascended into Heaven. After the Ascension, the Holy Apostles as priests of the New Law would also make the sign of the cross over the faithful in imitation of the Divine Savior. The hands of the Apostles, and thus the hands of all bishops and priests are consecrated so that they might bless and sanctify people and things. For example, at the end of every Holy Mass, the priest makes the sign of the cross with his hand over the people to bless them in the name of the Triune God. A priest does the same when he absolves sinners in Penance at the absolution in the name of the Triune God.

Now the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is different from a normal priestly blessing. The priest in Benediction does not bless the people. Rather the priest holds the Blessed Sacrament Who is the Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ Himself directly blesses the people. Again, it is not the priest who blesses in the person of Christ, but Christ Himself that blesses. In order to signify that he is not blessing the people, the priest covers his hands with a humeral veil which drapes over his shoulders and covers his hands (humurus means “shoulder” so a humeral veil is a “should veil”). The old Cæremoniale Romanum prescribes that the humeral veil should be fashioned from silk.

Clearly, the hands of the priest are not unworthy to touch the Body of Christ or even the golden monstrance which bears Him. The venerable hands of the priest, after all, hold the consecrated Body of Christ in the canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I once was confused about the use of the humeral veil in Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. I had assumed that the priest wore the humeral veil so as not to touch the monstrance on account of its sanctity in connection with the Holy Eucharist. However, this assumption caused me confusion since the priest clearly touches the monstrance with his bare hands at the beginning and end of the Benediction service.

The humeral veil is also used in Solemn High Mass by the subdeacon in order to hide the paten. The humeral veil has its origins in the Jewish prayer veil used by Jewish men and undoubtedly worn by Christ our High Priest and His Holy Apostles.

The Catechism Explained: Language of Prayer

AN EXHAUSTIVE EXPOSITION OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT STATE OF SOCIETY AND THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE.

A PRACTICAL MANUAL FOR THE USE OF THE PREACHER, THE CATECHIST, THE TEACHER, AND THE FAMILY.
MADE ATTRACTIVE AND INTERESTING BY ILLUSTRATIONS, COMPARISONS, AND QUOTATIONS
FROM THE SCRIPTURES, THE FATHERS, AND OTHER WRITERS.

FROM THE ORIGINAL, OF
REV. FRANCIS SPIRAGO,
Professor of Theology. 1899.

Part III. The Means of Grace.
15. THE LANGUAGE OF THE MASS

In celebrating the holy sacrifice of the Mass the Church makes use of the Latin language.

1. The Latin language is well adapted for the services of the Church, because it is both venerable and mysterious.

The Latin language is venerable on account of its origin and its antiquity; it is the language in which the praises of God resounded from the lips of Christians during the first centuries. It is a sublime and solemn thought that the holy sacrifice is now offered in the same language, nay, with the very same words as it was offered in times long past in the obscurity of the Catacombs. There is also an element of mystery about the Latin tongue; it is a dead language, not understood by the people. The use of an unknown tongue conveys to the mind of the vulgar that something is going on upon the altar which is past their comprehension, that a mystery is being enacted. In the first centuries of Christianity a curtain used to be drawn during the time from the Sanctus to the communion, to conceal the altar from the sight of the worshippers. This is now no longer done, but the use of an unknown tongue has something of the same effect, by inspiring awe into the minds of the common people. It is a striking fact that Jews and pagans made use, in the worship of the Deity, of a language with which the multitude were not conversant. The Jews made use of the ancient Hebrew, the language of the patriarchs; we do not find Our Lord or the apostles censuring this practice. The Greek Church, both orthodox and schismatical, employs the old form of the Greek language for divine service, not that spoken at present. The same language is in use in the Russian (so-called orthodox) Church, not the vernacular, which is a Slavonic dialect.

2. The use of the Latin language in her services is most advantageous for the Church; it serves to maintain her unity and preserve her from many evils.

The use of Latin is a means of maintaining unity in the Church, as well as uniformity in her services, for the use of one and the same language in Catholic churches all over the surface of the globe, is a connecting link binding them to Rome, and making one nations which are separated by diversity of tongues. Latin, as the language of the Church, unites all nations, making them members of God’s family, of Christ’s kingdom. The altar on earth is a type of the heavenly Jerusalem where a great multitude of all peoples and tongues stand around the throne, praising God. If Latin were not the official language of the Church, deliberations and discussions among bishops assembled at the councils, the mutual exchange of opinions between theologians would be impossible. Moreover, the use of Latin, the language of ancient Rome, is a constant reminder of our dependence on the Holy Roman Church; it recalls to our minds involuntarily the fact that thence, from the Mother Church, the first missionaries came who brought the faith to our shores.

The use of a dead language is a safeguard against many evils; it is not subject to change, but remains the same to all time. Languages in daily use undergo a continual process of change; words drop out, or their meaning is altered as years go on. If a living language were employed in divine worship heresies and errors would inevitably creep into the Church, and sacred words would be employed in an irreverent or mocking manner by the unbeliever. This is prevented by the use of Latin, at any rate as far as the unlearned are concerned. Yet the Church is far from desiring to keep the people in ignorance of the meaning of her religious services; the decrees of the Council of Trent (22, 8), strictly enjoin upon priests to explain frequently the mysteries and ceremonies of the Mass to the children in schools, and to adults from the pulpit. But as a matter of fact, it is by no means necessary for the people to understand every detail of the ceremonial of the Mass. “If,” says St. Augustine, “there are some present who do not understand what is being said or sung, they know at least that all is said and sung to the glory of God, and that is sufficient for them to join in it devoutly.” Moreover, experience teaches that the fact of the prayers being in Latin does not at all hamper or interfere with the devotion of the faithful, or lead them to absent themselves from the services of the Church. Besides, the sermons are always delivered in the vernacular; it is often used at the opening services and to some extent in administering the sacraments. The reason why the whole of the Mass is in Latin is because it is a sacrifice, not an instruction for the people. The greater part of the prayers are said by the priest secretly, so that were they in the mother tongue, they would be inaudible to the people. Furthermore, the celebration of Mass consists more in action than in words. The actions of the priest, the whole ceremonial, speaks a language intelligible to all. And if, as some would wish, all the services were conducted in the language of the country, persons of another nationality, not conversant with other languages, might be led to drop their religion on leaving their own land. Another evil consequent upon such a change would be a lessening of the respect felt for the holy sacrifice, as was proved at the time of the reformation, when the prayers of the Mass were, to a great extent, translated into German and English.

A Royal Crown

Anna Maria Canopi*

The foundress of Mater Ecclesiae Abbey on Lake Orta explains the monastic veil

“Receive the veil and the holy habit that are the insignia of our consecration… and never forget that you are bound to the service of Christ and of his body, the Church”. With this formula the bishop gives the nun her veil and religious habit on the day of her perpetual profession and consecration. The newly consecrated religious sings: Posuit signum in faciem meam… “The Lord has set his seal upon my face, that I should admit no other spouse than him”.

In her Spiritual Exercises, in which she renews her consecration in preparation for receiving the veil spiritually, the great mystic St Gertrude prayed: “O my Best-Beloved… grant me to rest beneath the shadow of thy love…. Give me with thine own hand this veil, which represents purity; rule me and lead me evermore, that I may bring it up to thy glorious judgement-seat, with the fruit of a chaste innocence increased a hundred-fold” (Spiritual Exercises, III).

The meaning of the veil is clear. The nun, consecrated in virginity to be exclusively Christ’s bride, must remove herself from the gaze of other possible suitors and lovers. For this reason she lives retired from the world in the cloister (claustrum, from which derive the terms “cloistered/enclosed” and cloister/enclosure), to be for ever beneath God’s gaze and, through her purity and the intensity of her love, for his pleasure alone.

The veil is thus a kind of cloister within the cloister, because in the monastery too the nun has a very reserved lifestyle and way of relating with the other cloistered nuns. However, this custom has nothing oppressive about it; indeed the veil is very dear to the nun and she wears it with devotion, kissing it every time she puts it on and takes it off.

By preventing her eyes from wandering, the veil helps her keep her heart’s gaze more directly focused on God in the contemplation of his face that she ever seeks and longs for. The veil is also the sign of the modesty that conceals her, in a certain sense, from her spouse himself. It was in this light that the Fathers always read the Song of Songs: “Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil…. A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed” (4:1, 12).

These splendid verses express the admiration and the stirred wonder of the divine Spouse before his promised bride, poised and clothed in humble, delicate reserve. It is the very mystery of virginal love to ask to be delicately guarded behind a veil. With St Paul we can truly exclaim how great is “this mystery”, both virginal and nuptial (cf. Eph 5:32).

Of course the mindset and perception of our time make it hard to understand and acknowledge this tradition of nuns, yet there is no lack of vocations to the cloistered life, as a testimony of the value of real faith in our society that is so widely secularized and de-Christianized.

Actually, according to God’s plan, the monastic vocation serves to compensate for the lack of faith that exists in the world; indeed, it is not contempt or forgetfulness but, rather, a life that excludes compromise with all that is worldly and corrupt so as to be dedicated entirely to prayer and ascesisfor the benefit of all humanity.

Nuns therefore sublimely live the nuptial and maternal mystery on the supernatural level. The vivid symbolism of the veil indicates precisely the generosity and intensity with which the cloistered religious makes a gift of herself to God for everyone, remaining hidden so as to be totally free in giving.

I cannot forget the emotion I felt at the moment when the bishop gave me the blessed veil: it was as if heaven was arching above me to envelop me in the sphere of the sacred, in the intimacy of Christ’s Heart, likening me to the Virgin Mother Mary.

When in the fourth century Pope Liberius consecrated Marcellina, the sister of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, at the moment when he placed the religious veil upon her head, all the people who thronged St Peter’s Basilica served as witnesses, applauding and proclaiming “Amen, Amen!”.

The liturgical rite of the velatio virginum is highly evocative. In ancient times red veils were also used to signify that the virgin had been redeemed by the blood of her Spouse, Christ. In one of his most beautiful homilies St Ambrose — who can be defined as “consecrator of virgins” — thus describes a consecrated woman with these words: “Adorned with all the virtues, wrapped in the veil stained purple by the Blood of her Lord, she advances like a queen, ever bearing in her body the death of Christ” (De institutione virginis, 17.109).

Therefore the character of martyrdom is also rightly attributed to virginity; it is held to be a form of martyrdom, since it is a life totally given. Its royal dignity is consequently recognized and crowned by the Spouse, King of the Universe. In this way the veil also comes to mean a royal crown.

Can there be any loftier dignity for a woman? But the veil itself keeps her humble. In the Basilica of San Simpliciano in Milan there is a 5th sepulchral inscription that says, quite simply: Hic iacet Leuteria cum capite velato. This poetic verse consigns to the memory of those to come a woman distinguished by the veil, a sign of consecration to Christ and a sign of the most exalted nobility.

In speaking of the veil one cannot fail to turn one’s attention to the Immaculate Virgin, always portrayed with a veil and sometimes with a veil large enough also to enfold the Baby Jesus, whom she holds in her arms.

Around her the most beautiful poetry has flourished in every era; to her are addressed the most heartfelt invocations that she will extend her veil over all of us, over all humanity of which she was made Mother. “O Virgin Mother, daughter of thy Son”, Dante chants, “Created beings all in lowliness / Surpassing, as in height above them all, / Term by th’eternal counsel preordained, / Ennobler of thy nature, so advanc’d / In thee, that its great Maker / Did not scorn, himself, in his own work enclos’d to dwell… / Here thou to us, of charity and love, / Art, as the noon day torch: and art, beneath, / To mortal men, of hope a living spring. / So mighty art thou, Lady! And so great, / That he who grace desireth, and comes not / To thee for aidance, fain would have desire / Fly without wings. / Nor only him who asks / Thy bounty succours, but doth freely oft / Forerun the asking” (The Divine Comedy, Paradise, Canto 23: 1-18).

Veiled, but present — like the Virgin Mary — is the woman entirely dedicated to the Lord in prayer; she does not become a disembodied and impassive being far from the common people, but rather a woman who is capable of sacrificial and universal love, given completely freely because she is a virgin.

This is the spiritual meaning of the veil upon the head of consecrated women. They are hidden from the world to be in the heart of the world and to bring all men and women to the Heart of Christ, the one Spouse of the Church, of the humanity which he redeemed at the price of his Blood, to make her holy and immaculate in his sight; resplendent with that spiritual beauty which must be preserved from all profanation behind the sacred virginal veil.

*Benedictine nun, who founded Mater Ecclesiae Abbey on the Island of San Giulio on Lake Orta, Novara, Italy

Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
18 July 2014, page 6

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/nunsveil.htm

Powered by

Tertullian – On the Veiling of Virgins

[Chapters 1-3. Tertullian begins by arguing against a new local custom in that area to unveil virgins, and only virgins, in Church. He explains that veiling all women, including virgins, is not merely a custom, but derives from truth itself and is therefore always true and never changeable or adaptable to time and place.]

Chapter 1. Truth Rather to Be Appealed to Than Custom, and Truth Progressive in Its Developments

Having already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription — no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. For these, for the most part, are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is successionally confirmed into an usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has surnamed Himself Truth, not Custom [as this new custom of unveiling] If Christ is always, and prior to all, equally truth is a thing sempiternal and ancient. … They who have received [the Holy Ghost] set truth before custom. They who have heard Him prophesying even to the present time, not of old, bid virgins be wholly covered.

…

[Chapters 4-7 – Tertullian explains the myriad reasons that virgins also constitute women and should thus likewise be veiled as they have from the beginning.]

…

Chapter 8. The Argument E Contrario

The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him; because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman— why the latter ought to be veiled, but the former not — it is apparent why he has been silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each) of woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis man: She shall be called, says he, woman, because she has been taken from her own man. Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like manner as Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence apply with sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and briefly and fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, Every woman. What is every, but of every class, of every order, of every condition, of every dignity, of every age?— if, (as is the case), every means total and entire, and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin is withal a part of the woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the man, he says every. Behold two diverse names, Man and woman— every one in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring. Therefore, if the fact that it is said every man makes it plain that the name of man is common even to him who is not yet a man, a stripling male; (if), moreover, since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who among men is a virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it is not consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman- virgin is similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised too in the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a stripling a man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a woman, let the stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let identity of virginity share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to every man, without entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to every woman? If any, he says, is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God. He shows that there had been some contention about this point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming every woman, whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined to her). So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.

Chapter 9. Veiling Consistent with the Other Rules of Discipline Observed by Virgins and Women in General

Let us now see whether, as we have shown the arguments drawn from nature and the matter itself to be applicable to the virgin as well (as to other females), so likewise the precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women have an eye to the virgin. It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office. Let us inquire whether any of these be lawful to a virgin. If it is not lawful to a virgin, but she is subjected on the self-same terms (as the woman), and the necessity for humility is assigned her together with the woman, whence will this one thing be lawful to her which is not lawful to any and every female? If any is a virgin, and has proposed to sanctify her flesh, what prerogative does she (thereby) earn adverse to her own condition? Is the reason why it is granted her to dispense with the veil, that she may be notable and marked as she enters the church? That she may display the honour of sanctity in the liberty of her head? More worthy distinction could have been conferred on her by according her some prerogative of manly rank or office! I know plainly, that in a certain place a virgin of less than twenty years of age has been placed in the order of widows! Whereas if the bishop had been bound to accord her any relief, he might, of course, have done it in some other way without detriment to the respect due to discipline; that such a miracle, not to say monster, should not be pointed at in the church, a virgin-widow! the more portentous indeed, that not even as a widow did she veil her head; denying herself either way; both as virgin, in that she is counted a widow, and as widow, in that she is styled a virgin. But the authority which licenses her sitting in that seat uncovered is the same which allows her to sit there as a virgin: a seat to which (besides the sixty years not merely single-husbanded (women)— that is, married women— are at length elected, but mothers to boot, yes, and educators of children; in order, forsooth, that their experimental training in all the affections may, on the one hand, have rendered them capable of readily aiding all others with counsel and comfort, and that, on the other, they may none the less have travelled down the whole course of probation whereby a female can be tested. So true is it, that, on the ground of her position, nothing in the way of public honour is permitted to a virgin.

…

Chapter 14. Perils to the Virgins Themselves Attendant Upon Not-Veiling

… These crimes does a forced and unwilling virginity incur. The very concupiscence of non-concealment is not modest: it experiences somewhat which is no mark of a virgin — the study of pleasing, of course, ay, and (of pleasing) men. Let her strive as much as you please with an honest mind; she must necessarily be imperilled by the public exhibition of herself, while she is penetrated by the gaze of untrustworthy and multitudinous’ eyes, while she is tickled by pointing fingers, while she is too well loved, while she feels a warmth creep over her amid assiduous embraces and kisses. Thus the forehead hardens; thus the sense of shame wears away; thus it relaxes; thus is learned the desire of pleasing in another way!

Chapter 15. Of Fascination

Nay, but true and absolute and pure virginity fears nothing more than itself. Even female eyes it shrinks from encountering. Other eyes itself has.

It betakes itself for refuge to the veil of the head as to a helmet, as to a shield, to protect its glory against the blows of temptations, against the dam of scandals, against suspicions and whispers and emulation; (against) envy also itself.

For there is a something even among the heathens to be apprehended, which they call Fascination, the too unhappy result of excessive praise and glory. This we sometimes interpretatively ascribe to the devil, for of him comes hatred of good; sometimes we attribute it to God, for of Him comes judgment upon haughtiness, exalting, as He does, the humble, and depressing the elated. The more holy virgin, accordingly, will fear, even under the name of fascination, on the one hand the adversary, on the other God, the envious disposition of the former, the censorial light of the latter; and will joy in being known to herself alone and to God. But even if she has been recognized by any other, she is wise to have blocked up the pathway against temptations. For who will have the audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face? A face without feeling? A face, so to say, morose? Any evil cogitation whatsoever will be broken by the very severity. She who conceals her virginity, by that fact denies even her womanhood.

Chapter 16. Tertullian, Having Shown His Defence to Be Consistent with Scripture, Nature, and Discipline, Appeals to the Virgins Themselves
Herein consists the defense of our opinion, in accordance with Scripture, in accordance with Nature, in accordance with Discipline. Scripture founds the law; Nature joins to attest it; Discipline exacts it. Which of these (three) does a custom founded on (mere) opinion appear in behalf of? Or what is the color of the opposite view? God’s is Scripture; God’s is Nature; God’s is Discipline. Whatever is contrary to these is not God’s. If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is manifest; and concerning Nature’s testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain. If there is a doubt about Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by God. For nothing is to Him dearer than humility; nothing more acceptable than modesty; nothing more offensive than glory and the study of men-pleasing. Let that, accordingly, be to you Scripture, and Nature, and Discipline, which you shall find to have been sanctioned by God; just as you are bidden to examine all things, and diligently follow whatever is better.

It remains likewise that we turn to (the virgins) themselves, to induce them to accept these (suggestions) the more willingly.

I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter — let me address you according to the names proper to your years — veil your head:

if a mother, for your sons’ sakes; if a sister, for your brethren’s sakes; if a daughter for your fathers’ sakes. All ages are perilled in your person. Put on the panoply of modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to other people’s. Wear the full garb of woman, to preserve the standing of virgin. Belie somewhat of your inward consciousness, in order to exhibit the truth to God alone. And yet you do not belie yourself in appearing as a bride. For wedded you are to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your flesh; to Him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in accordance with the will of your Espoused. Christ is He who bids the espoused and wives of others veil themselves; (and,) of course, much more His own.

Chapter 17. An Appeal to the Married Women

But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions — I suppose for fear of pressing the head — and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which power ought to be had on the head: the veil is their yoke. Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen. And for this reason a certain Roman queen said that they were most unhappy, in that they could more easily fall in love than be fallen in love with; whereas they are rather happy in their immunity from that second (and indeed more frequent) infelicity, that females are more apt to be fallen in love with than to fall in love. And the modesty of heathen discipline, indeed, is more simple, and, so to say, more barbaric. To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause: Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! It is well for you to unveil yourself from the head right down to the loins, lest withal this freedom of your neck profit you not! And, of course, what you have said to one you have said to all. But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who, amid (the recital of) the Psalms, and at any mention of (the name of) God, continue uncovered; (who) even when about to spend time in prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered? Of so small extent do they falsely imagine their head to be! Others, who think the palm of their hand plainly greater than any fringe or thread, misuse their head no less; like a certain (creature), more beast than bird, albeit winged, with small head, long legs, and moreover of erect carriage. She, they say, when she has to hide, thrusts away into a thicket her head alone — plainly the whole of it, (though)— leaving all the rest of herself exposed. Thus, while she is secure in head, (but) bare in her larger parts, she is taken wholly, head and all. Such will be their plight withal, covered as they are less than is useful.

It is incumbent, then, at all times and in every place, to walk mindful of the law, prepared and equipped in readiness to meet every mention of God; who, if He be in the heart, will be recognised as well in the head of females.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0403.htm

Veiled . . . for the sake of the angels

May 12, 2014, Written by Crystalina Evert

Several years ago, the priest who concelebrated my wedding (Fr. Louis Solcia) suggested that I do something that I hadn’t done since the day I became a bride: wear a veil in church.

I had always considered the veil to be an outdated tradition, reserved for pious elderly women. To be frank, my first thought was, “No way. What will people think? I’ll be the only person under the age of 80 with one!”

I began asking God why he would ask this of me, and wrestled in prayer with him over the idea. Slowly, I put aside my human respect and asked myself, “Why do we all yearn to wear a veil for our First Holy Communion, and dream of wearing one on the day of our wedding, but cringe at the idea of wearing it at any other time?” In both instances, we’re veiled as we approach our earthly or heavenly groom.

I thought, “When it comes to my attire, what’s the difference between how I dress for Saturday’s dinner and Sunday’s Mass?” When I present myself at God’s altar, shouldn’t there be a difference? After all, you might be able to wear your “Sunday Best” for any formal gathering, but you wouldn’t do the same with a veil.

So, despite the insecurities that screamed at me, I put one on and walked into church. Surprisingly, I felt a sense of immediate peace. Soon, what I wore on my head caused me to reevaluate the appropriateness of the rest of my wardrobe. After all, how can a woman veil her head without sufficiently veiling the rest of herself? I found myself becoming more mindful and deliberate in my actions and prayers. It reminded me that I was in a holy place, and in a Holy Presence.

The veil renewed my sensitivity to the sacred. Although I already knew that every church is the dwelling place of God, I felt a deeper realization that he wanted to converse with me. I wanted to be more of a woman of God.

These immediate inner promptings drove me to begin researching the veil. Although I’m still learning its theological significance, I was allured by the fact that St. Paul said women should veil themselves “because of the angels.”

I was surprised to learn that the three corners of the veil represent the woman being under the protection of the Holy Trinity.

I was especially intrigued when I read how feminists in the 1960’s exhorted women to “remove your badges of slavery to men and get rid of your veil!” The veil doesn’t represent my slavery toward men, but, as Alice Von Hildebrand remarked, “the female body should be veiled because everything which is sacred calls for veiling. . . . Veiling indicates sacredness and it is a special privilege of the woman that she enters church veiled.”

At times, it’s hard because I feel as if I’m the only one in church wearing one. At these moments, I sometimes ask, “Why am I doing this?” But, I’m not the only one. Hillary Clinton wore one when she met Pope John Paul II, as did Michelle Obama during her meeting with Benedict XVI. Despite their less-than-Catholic public policies, they veiled themselves. If they veil themselves when they stand in the presence of humans in order to show reverence, how can I not do the same in the presence of God?

In wearing a veil, I’m not under the impression that it makes me more holy or pleasing to God than those who don’t. After all, God looks at our hearts above all else. All I know is that if you’re thinking about wearing one, don’t be afraid. You’re not the only one, and sometimes other women simply need to see your courage and they’ll follow. God did not give us a spirit of fear, but offers us his courage to rise up and be a light to others.

Although there’s much more that could be said, I’ll leave you with these three quotes from other women who have experienced blessings from wearing a veil:

“I think wearing the veil is a beautiful outward symbol of the recognition of femininity and its distinction from masculinity. Wearing it helps me grow in virtue in modesty, in humility, and authentic femininity.”

“People may have stared, I may be exposed to judgment, and no, I am not perfect. None of these reasons were enough to keep me from showing my love and respect for God!”

“I wear a veil because while I am in the presence of God, I wish to be hidden from everyone but Him. It reminds me that I am there for Him.”

Crystalina Evert has spoken to hundreds of thousands of people on four continents about the virtue of chastity and is the author of Pure Womanhood and How to Find Your Soulmate without Losing Your Soul. She runs the website womenmadenew.com and lives in Denver with her husband, Jason, and their children. (She loves the veils from www.veilsbylily.com)

by Fr. John Francesco Maria Lim

The fi

rst church at Chartres boasted one of the most venerated relics in Christendom, Our Lady’s Veil, which tradition declares was worn by the Virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ e also as she stood at the foot of the

Cross. It had been transferred in the early years of the Christian Church from Jerusalem to Constantinople and presented by the Empress Ireneto the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (742-814). In 876 his descendant Charles the Bald gave the relic to the cathedral at Chartres. Our Lady’s Veil is kept in a golden reliquary beside the high altar and has formed the focus of many traditions throughout the centuries. For instance, in 911 when the bandit Rollo and his henchmen were besieging Chartres, local people took the veil from the church and paraded it as a flag of war. Rollo and his men were defeated and the siege was lifted.

The shrine is renowned for pilgrimages made by many of the great doctors and theologians of the Church. Our Lady’s Veil was believed to have protected the faithful down through the centuries from many dangers and evils, including famine and war, outbreaks of the plague, and the worst ravishes of the French Revolution.

The veil itself is more than six metres long and made of silk. Scientific studies have shown that it is of Syrian design, of fine quality and can be traced to the first century. If indeed it was the original Veil of Our Lady it has probably been extended and embellished over the centuries. It had once been depicted as atunic (Sancta Camisia) but when this was unwound it was found to be a Veil, or a long piece of cloth rather than a tunic.

Every year on 15^th August, the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady, the Veil is processed through the town of Chartres.

Although a large majority have been lost to history, some of the earliest relics of the Church still survive to this day. The relics that do remain are safely stored and kept around the world in churches and cathedrals to be seen and venerated by the Faithful. However, given Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, in which she left behind no physical body on Earth, no bodily relics remain. One relic that does remain is the sancta camisia, the veil she wore while giving birth to Jesus Christ.

“Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” – Saint John Damascene

Tradition says the sancta camisia, Latin for holy shirt, is the veil that was worn by the Virgin Mary during the Birth of Christ. It is over twenty feet long and made of fine silk. After the Assumption of Mary, it is said the veil was moved from Jerusalem to Constantinople, where Byzantine Empress Irene presented it to the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne. In 876, his grandson Charles the Bald gifted it to the Chartres Cathedral in France, where it has remained for over 1100 years.

In 1145, the veil was nearly destroyed when the church housing it caught fire. A few clergy members ran through flames into the churches crypt, veil in hand. It is said three days later they emerged completely unharmed through the intercession of Mary. The phenomenon was deemed a miracle, and taken as sign that the in the ashes of the old church a grander one should be built to venerate her. The Chartres Cathedral was built in its place.

Scientific tests of the veil have dated it back to the first century A.D., and of Syrian origin, lending credence to the tradition that the veil was worn by Mary herself. Today, it is kept safely housed in a golden reliquary beside the altar in the Chartres Cathedral. Every year on August 15th, the feast of the Assumption of Mary, the veil is carried throughout Chartres in a procession.

Veiled . . . for the sake of the angels

May 12, 2014, Written by Crystalina Evert

Veiled . . . for the sake of the angels

Several years ago, the priest who concelebrated my wedding (Fr. Louis Solcia) suggested that I do something that I hadn’t done since the day I became a bride: wear a veil in church.

I had always considered the veil to be an outdated tradition, reserved for pious elderly women. To be frank, my first thought was, “No way. What will people think? I’ll be the only person under the age of 80 with one!”

I began asking God why he would ask this of me, and wrestled in prayer with him over the idea. Slowly, I put aside my human respect and asked myself, “Why do we all yearn to wear a veil for our First Holy Communion, and dream of wearing one on the day of our wedding, but cringe at the idea of wearing it at any other time?” In both instances, we’re veiled as we approach our earthly or heavenly groom.

I thought, “When it comes to my attire, what’s the difference between how I dress for Saturday’s dinner and Sunday’s Mass?” When I present myself at God’s altar, shouldn’t there be a difference? After all, you might be able to wear your “Sunday Best” for any formal gathering, but you wouldn’t do the same with a veil.

So, despite the insecurities that screamed at me, I put one on and walked into church. Surprisingly, I felt a sense of immediate peace. Soon, what I wore on my head caused me to reevaluate the appropriateness of the rest of my wardrobe. After all, how can a woman veil her head without sufficiently veiling the rest of herself? I found myself becoming more mindful and deliberate in my actions and prayers. It reminded me that I was in a holy place, and in a Holy Presence.

The veil renewed my sensitivity to the sacred. Although I already knew that every church is the dwelling place of God, I felt a deeper realization that he wanted to converse with me. I wanted to be more of a woman of God.

These immediate inner promptings drove me to begin researching the veil. Although I’m still learning its theological significance, I was allured by the fact that St. Paul said women should veil themselves “because of the angels.” I was surprised to learn that the three corners of the veil represent the woman being under the protection of the Holy Trinity.

I was especially intrigued when I read how feminists in the 1960’s exhorted women to “remove your badges of slavery to men and get rid of your veil!” The veil doesn’t represent my slavery toward men, but, as Alice Von Hildebrand remarked, “the female body should be veiled because everything which is sacred calls for veiling. . . .

Veiling indicates sacredness and it is a special privilege of the woman that she enters church veiled.”

At times, it’s hard because I feel as if I’m the only one in church wearing one. At these moments, I sometimes ask, “Why am I doing this?” But, I’m not the only one. Hillary Clinton wore one when she met Pope John Paul II, as did Michelle Obama during her meeting with Benedict XVI. Despite their less-than-Catholic public policies, they veiled themselves. If they veil themselves when they stand in the presence of humans in order to show reverence, how can I not do the same in the presence of God?

In wearing a veil, I’m not under the impression that it makes me more holy or pleasing to God than those who don’t. After all, God looks at our hearts above all else. All I know is that if you’re thinking about wearing one, don’t be afraid. You’re not the only one, and sometimes other women simply need to see your courage and they’ll follow. God did not give us a spirit of fear, but offers us his courage to rise up and be a light to others.

Although there’s much more that could be said, I’ll leave you with these three quotes from other women who have experienced blessings from wearing a veil:

“I think wearing the veil is a beautiful outward symbol of the recognition of femininity and its distinction from masculinity. Wearing it helps me grow in virtue in modesty, in humility, and authentic femininity.”

“People may have stared, I may be exposed to judgment, and no, I am not perfect. None of these reasons were enough to keep me from showing my love and respect for God!”

“I wear a veil because while I am in the presence of God, I wish to be hidden from everyone but Him. It reminds me that I am there for Him.”

c-evert

Crystalina Evert has spoken to hundreds of thousands of people on four continents about the virtue of chastity and is the author of Pure Womanhood and How to Find Your Soulmate without Losing Your Soul. She runs the website womenmadenew.com and lives in Denver with her husband, Jason, and their children.

Annibale Bugnini
The main author of the Novus Ordo

By Michael Davies

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” – Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who died in Rome on 3 July 1982, was described in an obituary in The Times as “one of the most unusual figures in the Vatican’s diplomatic service.” It would be more than euphemistic to describe the Archbishop’s career as simply “unusual”. There can be no doubt at all that the entire ethos of Catholicism within the Roman Rite has been changed profoundly by the liturgical revolution which has followed the Second Vatican Council.

As Father Kenneth Baker SJ remarked in his editorial in the February 1979 issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels, but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately.”

Commentators from every shade of theological opinion have argued that we have undergone a revolution rather than a reform since the Council. Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, insists that no other term will do, adding: “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in even more forthright terms: “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”

Major Conquest Archbishop Bugnini was the most influential figure in the implementation of this liturgical revolution, which he described in 1974 as “a major conquest of the Catholic Church.”

The Archbishop was born in Civitella de Lego, Italy, in 1912. He was ordained into the Congregation for the Missions (Vincentians) in 1936, did parish work for ten years, in 1947 he became active in the field of specialised liturgical studies, was appointed Secretary to Pope Pius Xll’s Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948, a Consultor to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1956; and in 1957 he was appointed Professor of Sacred Liturgy in the Lateran University.

In 1960 Father Bugnini was placed in a position which enabled him to exert a decisive influence on the future of the Catholic Liturgy: he was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. He was the moving spirit behind the drafting of the preparatory schema, the draft document which was to be placed before the Council Fathers for discussion. It was referred to as the “Bugnini schema” by his admirers, and was accepted by a plenary session of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission in a vote taken on 13 January 1962.

The Liturgy Constitution for which the Council Fathers eventually voted was substantially identical to the draft schema which Father Bugnini had steered successfully through the Preparatory Commission in the face of considerable misgivings on the part of Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, President of the Commission.

The First Exile

Within a few weeks of Father Bugnini’s triumph his supporters were stunned when he was summarily dismissed from his chair at the Lateran University and from the secretaryship of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission. In his posthumous La Riforma Liturgica, Archbishop Bugnini blames Cardinal Arcadio Larraona for this action, which, he claims, was unjust and based on unsubstantiated allegations. “The first exile of P. Bugnini” he commented, (p.41).

The dismissal of a figure as influential as Father Bugnini could not have taken place without the approval of Pope John XXIII, and, although the reasons have never been disclosed, they must have been of a very serious nature. Father Bugnini was the only secretary of a preparatory commission who was not confirmed as secretary of the conciliar commission. Cardinals Lercaro and Bea intervened with the Pope on his behalf, without success.

The Liturgy Constitution, based loosely on the Bugnini schema, contained much generalised and, in places ambiguous terminology. Those who had the power to interpret it were certain to have considerable scope for reading their own ideas into the conciliar text. Cardinal Heenan of Westminster mentioned in his autobiography A Crown of Thorns that the Council Fathers were given the opportunity of discussing only general principles:

“Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the Liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts.” The Cardinal could hardly have been more explicit.

The experts (periti) who had drafted the text intended to use the ambiguous terminology they had inserted in a manner that the Pope and the Bishops did not even suspect. The English Cardinal warned the Council Fathers of the manner in which the periti could draft texts capable “of both an orthodox and modernistic interpretation.” He told them that he feared the periti, and dreaded the possibility of their obtaining the power to interpret the Council to the world. “God forbid that this should happen!” he exclaimed, but happen it did.

On 26 June 1966 The Tablet reported the creation of five commissions to interpret and implement the Council’s decrees. The members of these commissions were, the report stated, chosen “for the most part from the ranks the Council periti”.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was the first document passed by the Council Fathers (4 December 1963), and the commission to implement it (the Consilium) had been established in 1964.

Triumphant Return

In a gesture which it is very hard to understand, Pope Paul Vl appointed to the key post of Secretary the very man his predecessor had dismissed from the same position on the Preparatory Commission, Father Annibale Bugnini. Father Bugnini was now in a unique and powerful position to interpret the Liturgy Constitution in precisely the manner he had intended when he masterminded its drafting.

In theory, the Consilium was no more than an advisory body, and the reforms it devised had to be approved by the appropriate Roman Congregation. In his Apostolic Constitution, Sacrum Rituum Congregatio (8 May 1969), Pope Paul Vl ended the existence of the Consilium as a separate body and incorporated it into the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Father Bugnini was appointed Secretary to the Congregation, and became more powerful than ever. He was now in the most influential position possible to consolidate and extend the revolution behind which he had been the moving spirit and principle of continuity. Nominal heads of the Consilium and congregations came and went, Cardinals Lercaro, Gut, Tabera, Knox, but Father Bugnini always remained. His services were rewarded by his consecration as an Archbishop in 1972.

Second Exile

In 1974 he felt able to make his celebrated boast that the reform of the liturgy had been a “major conquest of the Catholic Church”. He also announced in the same year that his reform was about to enter into its final stage: “The adaptation or ‘incarnation’ of the Roman form of the liturgy into the usages and mentality of each individual Church.” In India this “incarnation” has reached the extent of making the Mass in some centres appear more reminiscent of Hindu rites than the Christian Sacrifice.

Then, in July 1975, at the very moment when his power had reached its zenith, Archbishop Bugnini was summarily dismissed from his post to the dismay of liberal Catholics throughout the world. Not only was he dismissed but his entire Congregation was dissolved and merged with the Congregation for the Sacraments.

Desmond O’Grady expressed the outrage felt by liberals when he wrote in the 30 August 1972 issue of The Tablet: “Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who as Secretary of the abolished Congregation for Divine Worship, was the key figure in the Church’s liturgical reform, is not a member of the new congregation. Nor, despite his lengthy experience, was he consulted in the planning of it. He heard of its creation while on holiday in Fiuggi … the abrupt way in which this was done does not augur well for the Bugnini line of encouragement for reform in collaboration with local hierarchies … Mgr Bugnini conceived the next ten years’ work as concerned principally with the incorporation of local usages into the liturgy … He represented the continuity of the post-conciliar liturgical reform.”

The 15 January 1976 issue of L’Osservatore Romano announced that Archbishop Bugnini had been appointed Apostolic Pro Nuncio in Iran. This was his second and final exile.

Conspirator Or Victim?

Rumours soon began to circulate that the Archbishop had been exiled to Iran because the Pope had been given evidence proving him to be a Freemason. This accusation was made public in April 1976 by Tito Casini, one of Italy’s leading Catholic writers. The accusation was repeated in other journals, and gained credence as the months passed and the Vatican did not intervene to deny the allegations. (Of course, whether or not Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason, in a sense, is a side issue compared with the central issue – the nature and purpose of his liturgical innovations.)

As I wished to comment on the allegation in my book Pope John’s Council, I made a very careful investigation of the facts, and I published them in that book and in far greater detail in Chapter XXIV of its sequel, Pope Paul’s New Mass, where all the necessary documentation to substantiate this article is available. This prompted a somewhat violent attack upon me by the Archbishop in a letter published in the May issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, in which he claimed that I was a calumniator, and that I had colleagues who were “calumniators by profession”.

I found this attack rather surprising as I alleged no more in Pope John’s Council than Archbishop Bugnini subsequently admitted in La Riforma Liturgica. I have never claimed to have proof that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason. What I have claimed is that Pope Paul Vl dismissed him because he believed him to be a Freemason – the distinction is an important one. It is possible that the evidence was not genuine and that the Pope was deceived.

Dossier

The sequence of events was as follows. A Roman priest of the very highest reputation came into possession of what he considered to be evidence proving Mgr Bugnini to be a Mason. He had this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul Vl by a cardinal, with a warning that if action were not taken at once he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. The dismissal and exile of the Archbishop followed.

In La Riforma Liturgica, Mgr Bugnini states that he has never known for certain what induced the Pope to take such a drastic and unexpected decision, even after “having understandably knocked at a good many doors at all levels in the distressing situation that prevailed” (p. 100). He did discover that a very high-ranking cardinal, who was not at all enthusiastic about the liturgical reform, disclosed the existence of a ‘dossier’, which he himself had seen (or placed) on the Pope’s desk, bringing evidence to support the affiliation of Mgr Bugnini to Freemasonry (p.101). This is precisely what I stated in my book, and I have not gone beyond these facts. I will thus repeat that Pope Paul Vl dismissed Archbishop Bugnini because he believed him to be a Mason.

Rumour

The question which then arises is whether the Archbishop was a conspirator or the victim of a conspiracy. He was adamant that it was the latter: “The disclosure was made in great secrecy, but it was known that the rumour was already circulating in the Curia. It was an absurdity, a pernicious slander. This time, in order to attack the purity of the liturgical reform, they tried morally to tarnish the purity of the secretary of the reform” (p.101-102).

Archbishop Bugnini wrote a letter to the Pope on 22 October 1975 denying any involvement with Freemasonry, or any knowledge of its nature or its aims. The Pope did not reply. This is of some significance in view of their close and frequent collaboration from 1964. The great personal esteem that the Pope had felt for the Archbishop is proved by his decision to appoint him as Secretary to the Consilium, and later to the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, despite the action taken against him during the previous pontificate.

Evidence

It is also very significant that the Vatican has never given any reason for the dismissal of Archbishop Bugnini, despite the sensation it caused, and it has never denied the allegations of Masonic affiliation. If no such affiliation had been involved in Mgr Bugnini’s dismissal, it would have been outrageous on the part of the Vatican to allow the charge to be made in public without saying so much as a word to exonerate the Archbishop.

I was able to establish contact with the priest who had arranged for the “Bugnini dossier” to be placed into the hands of Pope Paul Vl, and I urged him to make the evidence public. He replied: “I regret that I am unable to comply with your request. The secret which must surround the denunciation (in consequence of which Mgr Bugnini had to go!) is top secret and such it has to remain. For many reasons. The single fact that the above mentioned Monsignore was immediately dismissed from his post is sufficient. This means that the arguments were more than convincing.”

I very much regret that the question of Mgr Bugnini’s possible Masonic affiliation was ever raised as it tends to distract attention from the liturgical revolution which he masterminded. The important question is not whether Mgr Bugnini was a Mason but whether the manner in which Mass is celebrated in most parishes today truly raises the minds and hearts of the faithful up to almighty God more effectively than did the pre-conciliar celebrations. The traditional Mass of the Roman Rite is, as Father Faber expressed it, “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.” The very idea that men of the second half of the twentieth century could replace it with something better, is, as Dietrich von Hildebrand has remarked, ludicrous.

Liturgy Destroyed

The liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite may well be the most precious treasure of our entire Western civilisation, something to be cherished and preserved for future generations. The Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council stated that: “In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in future and foster them in every way.”

How has this command of the Council been obeyed? The answer can be obtained from Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a Council peritus, and an enthusiastic proponent of the postconciliar revolution. In his book Demain la liturgie, he stated with commendable honesty, concerning the Mass as most Catholics know it today: “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Even Archbishop Bugnini would have found it difficult to explain how something can be preserved and fostered by destroying it.
——————————————————————————–

ADDENDUM

“Whether Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason would seem to be an academic question (“What Went Wrong?”, Inside the Vatican, June-July 1996). For if we are to accept the testimony of Archbishop Malula of Kinshasa, Zaire, reported by Abbot Boniface Luykx (“The Bitter Struggle,” Inside the Vatican, May 1996, pp. 16-19), Bugnini had adopted the ideology of secular humanism, which even falls short of the tame Deism professed by the brethren of the Lodge.

“However, I have it on good authority that Bugnini’s abrupt dismissal was indeed prompted by incontrovertible evidence that he was a member of the Lodge. A priest who was a longtime personal friend of Pope Paul VI was informed, by a Freemason whom he had reconciled with the Church, that Bugnini was a member of the same lodge, whose date of initiation and code name he could provide.” (Reverend Father G.H. Duggan, S.M.)

“In 1972 Pope Paul created Bugnini Titular Archbishop of Dioclentia. In 1975, however, the Archbishop left his briefcase behind in a conference room, where it was found and inspected by the Dominican Friar charged with restoring the room to order. In search only of the identity of the case’s owner, the Dominican found, according to Piers Compton, documents whose “signatures and place of origin showed that they came from dignitaries of secret societies in Rome” (The Broken Cross, p. 61). The letters were addressed to “Brother Bugnini.” […] Bugnini was appointed the Apostolic pro-Nuncio to Iran, and repeatedly denied that he had Freemasonic affiliations. When the Italian Register came to light in 1976, however, it showed his April 23, 1963 initiation date and number, and gave his code name as ‘Buan.’” (Carey J. Winters)
“An internationally known churchman of unimpeachable integrity has also told me that he heard the account of the discovery of the evidence against Bugnini directly from the Roman priest who found it in a briefcase which Bugnini had inadvertently left in a Vatican conference room after a meeting.” (Reverend Father Brian Harrison O.S., Rome, Italy)

“Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason.” (Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.)

“To fight against papacy is a social necessity and constitutes the constant duty of freemasonry.” (Masonic International Congress held in Brussels 1904, page 132 of the report)

Pope Leo XIII: “Let us, therefore, expose Freemasonry as the enemy of God, of the Church and of our Motherland.” (Letter to the Italian people, December 8, 1892)

Leo XII: “They have exposed their contempt for authority, their hatred of Sovereignty, their attacks against the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the very existence of God: They openly vaunt their materialism as well as their codes and statutes which explain their plans and efforts in order to overthrow the legitimate Heads of State and completely destroy the Church.” (Encyclical, Quo Graviora)

Powered by

FASHIONISTA

WHY MILLENNIAL CATHOLICS ARE RE-ADOPTING THE TRADITIONAL CHAPEL VEIL

A growing group of young Catholic women are choosing to cover their heads in church.

WHITNEY BAUCK UPDATED ON OCT 15, 2018

A young Catholic woman from Las Vegas regularly shares images of herself wearing flawless makeup and lacy chapel veils on Instagram.

When former “America’s Next Top Model” contestant Leah Darrow first encountered young women in her Catholic community putting lace veils on their heads when entering church, she was a little weirded out. Having returned to the faith after a mystical experience on a magazine photo shoot convinced her to leave modeling behind, Darrow was serious about Catholicism — but wary of a practice she considered outdated at best.

“I was like, ‘Is somebody making you do this? What’s it about?'” Darrow says over the phone.

Since the practice of women covering their heads in Catholic worship spaces used to be the norm, but was largely abandoned by the ’60s, Darrow was uncertain as to what women covering their heads might signify in the 2010s. But the fact that the veil-wearing peers in question were “normal girls you could have a glass of wine with, but also very faithful” gave Darrow pause.

“There was something attractive to me about the life that they lived and how they prayed,” Darrow says. After researching more about the history and significance of veiling in the Catholic tradition, Darrow decided to try it herself. “I’m definitely a girly girl, so wearing a pretty veil sounded kind of fun,” she laughs.

Though Darrow didn’t start wearing a veil to mass every week, she did come to a new appreciation for the practice and now regularly brings a head covering on her visits to Rome, where she leads pilgrimages at least once a year. Her travels as a Catholic speaker and book author have convinced Darrow that veils are experiencing a renaissance amongst Catholic women — especially young American ones.

“There’s a new uprising in the Church of millennials who are actually wanting a more traditional take on their faith,” she says. This poses a striking contrast to Protestant mega-churches that are leveraging streetwear and celebrity connections to stay relevant.

Samantha Skinner, a high school science teacher in North Dakota, is one Catholic millennial interested in a return to tradition. Raised loosely Protestant but not a regular church attendee until she converted to Catholicism in college, Skinner began wearing a veil to mass every week before she’d even completed the classes necessary to formalize her conversion. A conversation with a friend who worked in a “holy bookstore” convinced Skinner to try the practice for herself.

“It just kind of resonated with me,” she says on the phone. For Skinner, the appeal of veiling was initially an emotional one: It made her feel humbled and reverent, like removing a hat during the national anthem or at a funeral might, and made her more able to focus on prayer.

Other young Catholics, like 24-year-old Ohio resident Forest Hempen, have chosen to adopt the veil after digging into the theological ramifications of the tradition. An aspiring theological speaker who gives talks on chastity to teens and works for a Catholic nonprofit in Cincinnati, Hempen became enamored with the veil through studying the theology of the body as articulated by her “holy crush” Pope John Paul II. To Hempen, chapel veils represent a whole range of things: a way to emulate the veil-wearing Virgin Mary, an experience of “authentic femininity” that sets women apart as specially blessed bearers of life and a reminder that she and all members of the church are to consider themselves brides in a symbolic marriage to Jesus, whom the Bible sometimes describes as a bridegroom.

Hempen also echoes Skinner and Darrow’s words about the connection veils have to both beauty and humility. While she acknowledges the seeming contradiction in claiming that the same garment can both elevate and bring low simultaneously, she sees the tension between the two as worth living with.

“It’s paradoxical; the best things in life are,” Hempen says in a phone call. “It only can be pulled into perfect balance if you’re in it for the right reasons and you have a relationship with God. Otherwise, it does turn into a ‘look how flashy I am, or look how holy I am’ thing.”

Hempen, Skinner and Darrow all became acquainted with veiling by seeing it practiced or hearing about it through friends. Their word-of-mouth introduction seems to be fairly typical, as the world of Catholic veil-wearers has yet to generate the level of online community and press that other religious fashion groups like hijab-wearing Muslims or “tzniut”-observing Jews have.

Some Catholics in big coastal cities like New York, where churches tend to be more liberal in both their theology and politics, may never even see the veiling that is becoming more and more commonplace in the Midwest. Grace Carney, a womenswear designer for Public School who grew up in the Catholic church in Minnesota and now attends Queen of All Saints in Fort Greene, confirms the idea that the practice varies by region.

“I haven’t seen any [veils] here in NYC, really,” she says via text message. But in the church she grew up in, Carney notes, “there were always a bunch of homeschooled kids and they would wear them.”

For proof that the veiling community is indeed growing and active outside of cities like New York, one need look no further than Veils by Lily. The mom-and-pop retailer started by Lily Wilson in 2010 has over 17,000 likes on Facebook and an engaged customer base that not only buys product, but also regularly shares the retailer’s posts and sends in pictures and letters of thanks. Since its founding, Veils by Lily has grown from one homeschooling mother’s side project into a full-time job for the founder and 11 employees. Soon, Wilson will open a brick-and-mortar retail space, which she believes will be the first store in America to focus on chapel veils.

Wilson’s vision for Veils by Lily was sparked by her own difficulty in finding veils that weren’t “frumpy.”

“My mission was to get more women wearing these veils, and I think the way to do it is to make them actually beautiful,” Wilson says on the phone. “It’s not about veils. It’s about God. The veil is a small tool that we can use to open our hearts to God more.”

Besides having her in-house team make veils and import a selection of styles from Europe, Wilson also uses Veils by Lily to provide education on the use, purpose and theological significance of veils through the brand’s blog and social media.

“It’s about loving submission to God.”

Though convincing more Catholic women that wearing veils is a spiritual boon has obvious financial benefits for Wilson and her company, she’s quick to assert that it’s never been about the money.

“We started this because we felt that it was something that was going to bring back reverence for the Eucharist,” she says. “We’ve never had sales goals and I don’t think we ever will. Our business is built on trust that if God really wants us to do this, he will make it possible. And if he doesn’t want us to do it, we don’t mind shutting down.”

It doesn’t look like that’s something Wilson will have to worry about anytime soon. Even if veiling doesn’t become the norm for Catholic women across the country the way it was in the ’50s, it’s certainly gaining a level of critical mass. And if the reasoning behind the practice is articulated winningly, it’s not likely to draw fierce ire from those who don’t undertake it themselves.

“After all,” says Darrow, “there is something beautiful about how that piece of fashion speaks to faith and prayer life.”

Never miss the latest fashion industry news. Sign up for the Fashionista daily newsletter.

[A Protestant publication]

When I first saw some Mennonite women with their head coverings, I couldn’t imagine why they were wearing those things on their heads. I figured it was simply some type of quaint costume.

But then I read the writings of the early Christians. And then I understood why Mennonite and Amish women wear prayer veils or head coverings. I realized that it was in obedience to 1 Corinthians 11:5, which says, Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. The early Christian women veiled their heads not only in church, but also anytime they were in public.

From my later study of church history, I discovered that Christian women continued to maintain this practice through all centuries up to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. During the nineteenth century, many Christians in the United States and western Europe began arguing that long hair constituted the only covering women needed. Others said that women only needed to wear a covering when in church. The middle class and wealthy women switched from veils and caps to ornate bonnets if they wore a covering at all. Bonnets became more a matter of fashion than of modesty or obedience to 1 Corinthians 11.

By the turn of the twentieth century, the ornate bonnets of the nineteenth century had given way to ladies’ hats. Until the mid-century, women in Europe and America typically wore a hat or scarf in public, but they were simply following tradition and fashion without realizing that there was originally a spiritual reason behind the practice. Similarly, until about 1960, western women wore hats when in church. But the meaning behind the hat was lost.

Today, Christian women in eastern churches still cover their heads in church. Some of them cover their heads all of the time. In the west, some Plymouth Brethren women still wear the prayer veil in church, as do many black women. But usually these sisters do not wear a head covering at other times.

Generally speaking, in the west today, only the Mennonite, Amish, Brethren and Hutterite women still practice wearing a head covering at all times. However, in recent years, they have been joined by thousands of Christian women from house churches and other independent congregations who have re-discovered this New Testament practice.

But, as it has been said, a picture is worth a thousand words. So I have set forth below pictures of the Christian woman’s head covering from the early Christian era to the present day.

David Bercot

Early Christian head covering-01

200’s: Catacombs-Rome

Early Christian head covering-03

200’s: Catacombs-Rome

Early Christian head covering-04

200’s: Catacombs-Rome

Early Christian head covering-05

200’s: Catacombs-Rome

Early Christian head covering-06

300’s: Catacombs-Rome

During the Middle Ages, Christian women continued to wear head coverings for modesty and prayer. These coverings were quite substantial. In fact, the traditional veil worn by Roman Catholic nuns until recent times were based on the coverings that most Christian women wore in medieval Europe.

Medieval woman=s head covering-01

800’s: England

Medieval woman=s head covering-02

1100’s: Europe

Medieval woman=s head covering-03

1200’s: Europe

Medieval woman=s head covering-04

1300’s: England

Medieval woman=s head covering-05

1400’s: England

Medieval woman=s head covering-06

1400: Germany

Medieval woman=s head covering-07

1400’s: Europe

Medieval woman=s head covering-08

1450: Italy

Reformation Era
Around the time of the Reformation, the cap form of head covering became popular in northern Europe in place of a hanging veil.

woman=s head covering-Reformation-01

1500’s: Europe

woman=s head covering-Reformation-02

1500’s: Europe

woman=s head covering-Reformation-03

1520: Germany

woman=s head covering-Reformation-04

1525: Lutheran Church Service

woman=s head covering-Reformation-05

1530: England

woman=s head covering-Reformation-07

1535: Belgium

woman=s head covering-Reformation-09

1560: France

woman=s head covering-Reformation-10

1567: Belgium

woman=s head covering-Reformation-11

1580: Netherlands

1600’s and 1700’s
In the sixteenth century, the cap type of covering replaced the hanging veil in western Europe and in the newly discovered Americas.

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-01

1600’s: Europe

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-02

1600’s: Netherlands

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-03

1620: France

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-04

1620: New England

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-05

1625: France

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-06

1600’s: Netherlands – Anabaptists

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-07

1650: England

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-08

1650: Netherlands

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-09

1655: Netherlands

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-10

1660: England

woman=s prayer veil-1600s-11

1670: Europe

woman=s prayer veil-1700s-02

1750: Europe

The 1800’sDuring the 1800’s, middle and upper class women generally wore bonnets for head coverings. Sometimes these were more a matter of fashion than of modesty. However, among the common people, caps and veils were still quite common.

Christian head covering-1800s-01

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-02

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-03

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-04

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-05

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-06

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-07

1800’s: England

Christian head covering-1800s-09

1800’s: United States

Christian head covering-1800s-10

1820: United States

Christian head covering-1800s-11

1825: United States

Christian head covering-1800s-12

1850: France

Christian head covering-1800s-13

1870: England

Christian head covering-1800s-14

1880: United States

Christian head covering-1800s-16

1888: Brittany

Christian head covering-1800s-17

1890: England

The Twentieth Century

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-01

1900: United States

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-02

1920: New York – Russian Immigrant

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-03

1929: United States

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-04

1940: Christian Women in India

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-05

1943: Lutherans

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-06

1945: Episcopalians

1948-Catholic-confirmation

1948: United States – Roman Catholic Confirmation

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-08

1948: Presbyterians

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-09

1950: Canada – Hutterites

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-10

1950: Episcopalian Confirmation

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-11

1953: Black Baptists – Baptism

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-12

1954: Roman Catholic baptism (U. S.)

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-13

1955: Congregationalists

Christian woman=s head covering-1900s-14

1960: Nuns

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

Prayers of The Angelic Warfare Confraternity

Petitions for Chastity with 15 Hail Marys:

Dear Jesus, bless our social and cultural climate. Grant that it may be purified of everything contrary to chastity, and that we may have the strength to resist the pressures of prevailing ideologies. “In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have conquered the world” (Jn. 16:33) “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our relationships. Grant that they may be holy, healthy, and honorable at all times. “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart” (1 Pet. 1:22) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our modesty in our dress and movement. Grant that the way we dress and carry ourselves may veil the mystery of our being, and that we may have the strength to resist the allurements of fashion and the glamour of sin. “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom. 12:2) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our five senses. Grant that the things we see, the music and jokes we hear, the food we eat, what we drink, the fragrances we smell and the encounters we have through touch may all be pure and holy. “Seek the things that are above” (Col. 3:1) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our sensuality. Grant that our impulses may not be captivated by base pleasures, but freed by wisdom and inflamed for what is good. “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Heb. 12:4) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our imagination, Grant that we may be preserved from any fantasies that defile us, that all impure images may vanish, and that we may be protected from all the assaults of demons. “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds…Put on the whole armor of God” (Eph. 4:23, 6:11) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our memory. Grant that no memories of past experiences may disturb us in any way, but that the Lord may touch and heal us through hope for a better future. “And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:1) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our estimation. Grant that we may quickly sense dangers to chastity and instinctively flee from them, that we may never turn away from higher, more difficult, and more honorable goods for the sake of sinful self-indulgence. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.” (Mt. 6:19-20) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our affectivity. Grant that we may love chastity and rejoice in it, that all of our emotions may cooperate in its growth, and that no sadness, discouragement, fear, insecurity, or loneliness may afflict us unto sexual sin. “For the grace of God has appeared, saving all and training us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age, as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11-12) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our intellect. Grant that it may be purged of all false beliefs and misunderstandings about human sexuality and that the good angels may flood our intellects with thoughts that are gracious, pure, lovely, honorable, and true. “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil. 4:8) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our will. Grant that it may never be opposed by our sensuality, that it may never be divided or conflicted in the moment, but may hold fast to chastity no matter how difficult it may be. “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ…was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.” (2 Cor. 1:19-20) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our conscience. Grant that it may be swift to judge what is the chaste thing to do, swifter to execute it, and wholly preserved from the suggestions of demons. “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:14) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, bless our hearts. Grant that the place where Christ abides in us with the Father and the Spirit may become the place where we live with the Holy Trinity in friendship. “Jesus answered him, ‘If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.’ ” (Jn. 14:23) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, give us the grace of self-surrender. Grant that we may hand over to God nothing less than our whole lives. “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Lk. 23:46) “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:3) Hail Mary…
Dear Jesus, give us Your love. “In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the expiation for our sins.” (1 Jn. 4:10) “But God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8) Hail Mary…

Closing Prayer

Heavenly King, Consoler, Spirit of Truth, You who are everywhere present and fill all things, Treasury of all that is good, Choirmaster of Life, Come, dwell within us, cleanse us of all stain, and save our souls O Good One. Amen
V. In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
R. Amen.

http://www.angelicwarfareconfraternity.org/prayers/

Search Site

Veiling and Its Relation to the Sacred

“Trembling he said, How awesome is this place! It is truly the house of God, the gate of heaven.” (Gen 28:17)

“I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house; and the place where thy glory dwelleth” (Psa 25:8)

Vespers of Passion Sunday

Part III. The Means of Grace.
15. THE LANGUAGE OF THE MASS

1. The Latin language is well adapted for the services of the Church, because it is both venerable and mysterious.

2. The use of the Latin language in her services is most advantageous for the Church; it serves to maintain her unity and preserve her from many evils.

Mary of the Day (August 18) – Our Lady’s Veil (Sancta Camisia)

FASHIONISTA

WHY MILLENNIAL CATHOLICS ARE RE-ADOPTING THE TRADITIONAL CHAPEL VEIL

A growing group of young Catholic women are choosing to cover their heads in church.

Search Site

Veiling and Its Relation to the Sacred

“Trembling he said, How awesome is this place! It is truly the house of God, the gate of heaven.” (Gen 28:17)

“I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house; and the place where thy glory dwelleth” (Psa 25:8)

Share this:

Readings and Prayers for St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary Day 33 of 33

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars

Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine

Article 9. Whether Holy Scripture should use metaphors?

“We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils.”

Devotion to the Holy Face

Mid-19th Century: Sister Mary of Saint Peter and the Venerable Leo Dupont

Late 19th Century: St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face

The Human Face of Lord Christ

Vespers of Passion Sunday

Reading

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 2018

Part III. The Means of Grace. 15. THE LANGUAGE OF THE MASS

2. The use of the Latin language in her services is most advantageous for the Church; it serves to maintain her unity and preserve her from many evils.

A Royal Crown

St Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus The Instructor (Book III), Chapter 11

Tertullian – On the Veiling of Virgins

It betakes itself for refuge to the veil of the head as to a helmet, as to a shield, to protect its glory against the blows of temptations, against the dam of scandals, against suspicions and whispers and emulation; (against) envy also itself.

I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter — let me address you according to the names proper to your years — veil your head:

I was surprised to learn that the three corners of the veil represent the woman being under the protection of the Holy Trinity.

Veiling indicates sacredness and it is a special privilege of the woman that she enters church veiled.”

Annibale Bugnini The main author of the Novus Ordo

Prayers of The Angelic Warfare Confraternity

Petitions for Chastity with 15 Hail Marys:

Closing Prayer

Readings and Prayers for St. Louis-Marie de Montfort’s
Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary
Day 33 of 33

Mid-19th Century:
Sister Mary of Saint Peter
and the Venerable Leo Dupont

Late 19th Century:
St. Therese of the
Child Jesus and of the Holy Face

Part III. The Means of Grace.
15. THE LANGUAGE OF THE MASS

St Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus
The Instructor (Book III), Chapter 11

Annibale Bugnini
The main author of the Novus Ordo