MEljITA THEOLOGICA
Vol. XXI 1969 Nos. 1 & 2
FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION 'LUMEN GENTIUM'
REDEMPTION is a divine action that liberates man. Already in the Old Testament salvation is often presented as a divine intervention in order to free man from all kind of slavery. The Church as the great sacrament of redemption is also a sacrament of freedom, namely of the liberty of the sons and daughters of God. It is true the liberty of the children of God can survive all forms of suppression and tyranny. But the Church cannot credibly proclaim the genuine nature of the liberty of the sons of God unless she is concerned to foster and to promote the freedom of all men on all levels, above all in the relationships which characterize her own life. The Church is the visible sign, the effective sacrament of salvation to the extent that she is also a sacrament of liberty that helps all men to distinguish genuine liberty from libertinism and to commit themselves to the cause of liberty for all mankind. Vatican II has rendered a great service to the credibility of the Church and to the right understanding of her relationship to State and society through the declaration on religious liberty. However this declaration receives its final value and authority only in the context of all the efforts of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar epoch to understand and to promote better religious and human freedom. All the decrees and Constitutions of Vatican II have made their contribution in order to manifest the authority which freedom has in the Catholic Church. Indeed, today it has become even clearer that the effective spiritual authority of the pastors of the Church depends to a great extent on the degree of authority which liberty itself enjoys in the Church !md is recognised in the OlUrch.
I. THE UNDERSTANDING WHICH THE CHURCH HAS OF HER OWN MYSTERY AS A HOUSE OF FREEDOM. Already the great freedom of speech and varie.ty of opinions revealed in the Council without loss of unity and mutual understanding, has changed the image which some members of the Church and some aspects of her teaching had created of a Church unified only by a somewhat slavish obedience and uniformity under law. This was never totally the case; there were always Saints living the blessed freedom of the child ren of God. Yet no one can deny that under the influence of the Romano Germanic juridicism and of Irish-Celtic penitential practices, the juridi cal aspect of the Church came unduly to the fore, separated from the mystery of the Church, the community of love, and partially falsifying the juridical reality of the Church herself. However, the chief reason for the strong emphasis on a slavish de pendence and literal obedience was perhaps the individualism of past epochs, the spirit of European culture reigning among Catholics in the very fields of morality and religiosity. The primary question for the average Catholic seemed to be: 'how can I save my soul?', and if he was obsessed with this question alone he was willing to leave the world to the devil if he could save his own soul. But where there was no law, he considered and used his liberty egotistically. This individ ualism had to be compensated for by an almost total regulation by law. A paternalistic regulation by many laws was, to some extent, a ne'::essi ty. IndividualisQ,) elicited an almost complete repression of initiative. 4 BERNARD HARING By this conception of obedience and total regulation it seems that some Christians feared nothing so much as other Christians who wished to live by the Spirit, rather than by the mere letter of the law. These people wanted total legal regulation of every aspect of the Christian life. Therefore the great question now is, 'how does the Church understand herself and every member of the Christian people of God?' She understands herself as the living temple of the living God, as the mystical body of Christ. Paragraph seven of the Constitution Lumen Gentium says: As all the members of the human body, though they are many, form one body, so also the faithful in Christ. Also, in the building up of Christ's Body, various members and functions have thdr part to, play. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the n~eds of his ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church. We see here the two mutually complementary aspects - great variety and unity. In the chapter on the laity (§ 32) it is said that it is the Holy Spirit who, through the variety of his gifts builds up unity, not in 'spite of different charisms, not in spite of a variety of initiatives among the members, but precisely because of these, he builds up unity. Paragraph nine describes the messianic people of God:
The state of this people is that of the dignity and freedom of the sons of God, in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells as in his temple. Its law is the new commandment to love as Christ loved us. Its end is the kingdom of God, which was begun by God himself on earth and which is to be further extended until it is brought to perfection by him at the end of time. This great biblical view of community is built on the great law of spontaneous love, aot selfish love, upon a love that finds in all things what builds up the mystical body, what builds up the neighbour. All the faithful have full membership in the people of God, which is a holy people, a kingly priesthood, as paragraph ten reminds us: •.. the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hier archical priesthood are nonetheless related: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. All d'le faithful, in their solidarity, in their docility to the Holy Spirit are taught by God. As paragraph twelve says: FREEDOM AND AUTIlORlTY ACCORDING TO 'LUMEN GENTIUM' 5 The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. When this was under discussion in the Council, Cardinal Wyszynski remarked that there can be a time when there is no bishop in a country, and yet the people keep the integrity of the faith, taught by the Holy Spirit. It is one of the great teachings of the Council that the subject of infallibility is seen to be the whole people of God, contributing from the Holy Father down to the humblest of the faithful, to the sensus fidei, the discernment of the faith which is given to the whole people of God, although there remains always a special role of the successor of St. Peter and the bishops. This will have great consequences for dogmatic theology as well as for moral. The variety of special graces among Christians of every rank, the richness of the charisms is seen as the work of the one Spirit, and therefore as contributing to the unity of the body of Christ. This variety of gifts often involves courageous initiative, but always in the spirit of solidarity and service. This must be understood. If we speak only of freedom, many of those formed by the ascetical treatises of the last century understand only freedom for myself, freedom for my own security or for my laziness, for my egotism. Real freedom can only grow within the context of and through the spirit of solidarity and service. If this solidarity and unity in variety of the gifts of God is the fundamental attitude of all of the people of God, of all ranks, then the Church does not need to compensate for a basic individualism by over-emphasis on law. So freedom in the next epoch of Church histoty, as in earlier epochs, must rest upon this fundament of the spirit of solidarity. It is this spirit of solidarity which obllges each one of us to use his gifts, to take initiatives, to make his special contribution to the whole. Catholicity, in terms of total solidarity, obliges the Church, and es pecially those in authority, to protect legitimate variety. Paragraph thirteen is explicit:
Rather does it (the Church) foster and take to itself insofar as they are good, the ability, riches and customs in which the genius of each people expresses itself. Taking them to itself, it purifies, stren~ens, elevates and consecrates them ••• each individual part contributes 6 BERNARD HARING through its special gifts to the good of the other parts and of the whole Church. Through the common sharing of gifts and through the common effort to attain fulness in unity, the whole and each of the parts receives increase. Moreover ••• the Chair of Peter (which) presides over the whole assembly of charity and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity, but rather contribute to it. The whole work of the Council, and this was the insight of Pope John, can be seen in the light of the mystety of variety in unity and unity in variety. This should foster in every community the conversion from personal individualism and from group egoism, to solidarity. This con version is absolutely necessary and indispensable to personal respon sibility in courageous initiative. Otherwise we are hastening toward anarchy or toward slavery. This spirit of courageous initiative in view of building up unity does not need such restriction or control as an individualistic approach. This approach with its emphasis on both solidarity and initiative is also especially necessary in our open, mobile and pluralistic society. Catholics living under total law restrictions always fall behind life and are considered not to be living in our own times, not prepared to give witness in our society where so many other forms are presented to them in the spirit of freedom as attractive value systems. This is not, how ever, the chief reason for this emphasis on liberty and· solidarity. The chief reason is the very mystery of the Church, the understanding of herself which the Church has from divine revelation.
II. COLLEGIALITY AS PROTOTYPE OF SYNTHESIS BETWEEN SOLDARITY IN RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY Collegiality does not mean diminution of authority within the Church, but rather a strengthening of authority for the Holy Father by giving him greater liberty in the exercise of his privileges in full and immediate communion with the college of bishops. This also makes him, from a sociological and sociopsychological point of view, the free head of the whole college of bishops, free to have their whole and immediate collab oration, free to have the strength of greater closeness to the whole world. This is an authority which stimulates initiative, coordinates, but does not stifle, effort. The Council's great vision of collegiality and corresponsibility in authority, means a patient dialogue, a humble pro cess of learning for a more effective exercise of authority. #> FREEDOM AND AUTIIORITY ACCORDING TO 'LUMEN GENTIUM' 7 I feel that in the press Pope Paul is often misunderstood. Great in justice is done him when he is called timid, undecided, because he does not come out with a new law every day. His practice is patient dialogue, first to hear the whole Church, then to try to show what is the right, prevalent, pastorally necessary doctrine or regulation. Only then is it time for regulation by law, if this is still needed. Pope Paul is blamed for not being strong enough because he does not represent the rype of paternalistic authority which is the ideal of those who criticize him. Authority means brotherhood, not just brotherhood with the majority, but with all members of the college of bishops. This is an authority in humility, in self-denial and in patience, and this is a supernatural ele ment impossible to attain for those who do not believe in the gospel of the Holy Spirit, in the good tidings that Christ still lives and works in his Church through this Holy Spirit. Men cannot effect this kind of unity. The earthly city is always tempted to put its trust in uniformity, in an imposed unity. It has been often repeated in the Council that collegiality supposes a strong faith in the mystery of the Church. It is not just another form of democracy, even though it contains all that is good in democracy in a higher way. This concept of collegiality on the highest level of the Pope and the college of the successors of the Apostles will have strong repercussions on the whole Church. It obliges the bishop, if he wishes to be prepared for this dialogue with the successor of St. Peter and the other bishops, to carry on a patient dialogue with his priests and with all the faithful of his diocese. It prepares the priest for a free and humble dialogue with his bishop through patient and respectful dialogue with his people. It is a continuous exercise of authority and solidarity, especially through the episcopal conferences. It means that some bishops will have to renounce their idea of a monarchical bishop. All bishops will have to renounce group egoism and each must give up some of his independence in order to achieve a common pastoral approach to problems within the nation or continent or the whole college of bishops under the guidance of the Holy Father and, most importantly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This fundamental attitude allows the supreme authority to grant more faculties and room for courageous initiative on all levels. Government of the Church does not thus become easier. It becomes humanly impossible! Impossible for everyone who does not believe in the mystery of the Church, who thinks the Holy Spirit is 'on vac!tion'. The exercise of collegiality is the expression of faith in the mystery of 8 BERNARD HARING the Church, in the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Ill. THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR FREEDOM IN THE CHURCH You know from press reports how vigorous was the discussion of the council on the role of the Holy Spirit. To the proposals of the first draft, the oriental bishops had two chief objections. The text spoke more often of power than of service - and this has been changed. There was an almost total absence of reference to the Holy Spirit - and if you read the text as promulgated, you see that in almost every article what is said is referred to the mystery of the Holy Spirit working within the Church. This means a very decided step toward a conception of the Church which fosters freedom, for as the Apostle of the Gentiles says in 2 Cor. 3: 17 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.' In the same context he says also that the written law condemns to death, the Spirit gives life (3:6). He does not say that ~he written word of God in the Old and New Testaments condemns to death, but the taking of the law written there to be the whole reality, with no room left for freedom and initiative according to the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is the separation of the written law of the Old Testament from Christ that makes the cling ing to the letter of law a death-bringing law. For the word of God written in the Gospel, and to a lesser degree also, for laws promulgated by the Church, Christ's words are true; 'The words I have spoken to you are both spirit and life.' (John 6:64) Because his words are spirit, they are life, and where Christ's Spirit is, there is freedom promoted, created, not stifled. Paragraph four of the Constitution Lumen Gentium says:
The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19). In them he prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons (cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26). The Church which he guides in the way of all truth (cf. In. 16:13) and which he unifies in conun,union and in the works of ministry, he both equips and directs with various hierarchical and charismatic gifts ••. By the power of the Gospel he makes the Church keep the freshness of youth.
So it is the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, uninterruptedly renews her and so preserves in her the freshness of youth. This is the most import!tnt condition and express'ion of true Christian liberty. Where everything is ruled by law, where there is no spiritual understanding of " FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY ACCORDING TO 'LUMEN GENTIUM' 9 law, where it is not seen that Church law never means to hinder life - there, there is no freshness of youth. It is the Holy Spirit which gives the Church this freshness, so that she is no less dynamic than our dynamic society. She is not medieval, not nineteenth century - she is of today and of tomorrow. Thus she adores the Spirit who renews the face of the earth. Although we consider collegiality in this light of the presence of the Holy Spirit, as explicitly explained in paragraph thirteen, special em phasis is given to the presence of the Spirit in the chapter on the laity. In fact it almost seems from the text that the laity is more richly gifted than the collegiality! The chapter on collegiality is written in a much more juridical style than that on the laity. But the 'Nota praevia' warns against a juridical misunderstanding. Collegiality, by its very nature is a 'fruit of the Spirit', but above all in view of building up a spiritual and visible unity of the whole people of God. The role of the bishops and of the laity must be seen only in union with Peter. There is no doubt in our minds that collegiality is nothing without the office of the successor of St. Peter, and it is clearly stated that it is through the Spirit that col legiality operates. But the corresponding fact in regard to the laity is repeated under many headings, perhaps neces'sarily so, since this was an 'under-developed nation' within the Church. Paragraph thirty-four states: Christ Jesus, since he wills to continue his witness and serve also through the laity, vivifies them in this Spirit and increasingly urges them to every good and perfect work.
So it is not only as men under authority, under obedience, but as men under the Holy Spirit, that they are enriching the whole Church. This is expressed still stronger in the Constitution on the Church in the Modem World, where eschatalogical virtues are seen to correspond immediately to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, especially the virtues of hope and watchfulness. Hope, in the context of eschatalogical virtue, does not just mean that I can win enough merit to earn beatitude. Hope means a progressive, dynamic power that feels already the fulness of grace, the presence of the Spirit and is urged by this fulness to make greater progress in unity and charity. This is also a spirit of watchful ness. The spiritu1l1 man does not only learn the letter of the law, and its necessary casuistic application to all possible cases, although ca'§uistic training may also be necessary for growth in prudence and discernment 10 BERNARD H ARING of the signs of the times. Watchfulness is a virtue quite different from the legalistic approach. It is a watchfulness for the signs of the times, the kairos, the present opportunity which is not possible for human wisdom, but only for the faithful, docile to the Holy Spirit. In this same spirit we may also speak of the spirit of fortitude. There have been those in the past who seemed to think that both fortitude and epikeia were dangerous virtues, to be stifled in, the Church. Certainly all this freedom, this vigilance to the signs of the times, this fortitude and epikeia are very 'dangerous'in the eyes of the .legalist and of all those who are obsessed by a security complex. They mean risk undeniably, but we can bear the risk if we believe in the Holy Spirit, if we are men of prayer, humble and docile to the Spirit. Those who wish to give no place to these virtues are clearly running no risk - but then graveyards have no risks! The history of the text makes it quite clear how tenaciously the minority upholders of the paternalistic approach attacked every phrase in which there was mention of the charisms. Perhaps they feared that if the text spoke of charisms and charity, the variety of gifts, initiative, a new epoch would have begun, and so by their opposition they ga ve an even greater importance to the final text which was almost' unanimously approved. They made its meaning for the life of the Church much more evident. The presence of the Spirit also allows much greater variety within the Church in the dialogue with the separated brethren. If the understanding which the Church has of herself refers only to external authority, then we have nothing to do with those who are not submitted to that authority. But if we believe above all in the Holy Spirit, and in his grace, we see how much we still have in common with them. And it is due to the Holy Spirit, as Pope Paul explained at the start of the Second Session of the Council, that they did not merely preserve essential parts of the common heritage, but even partially developed it in a fortunate way. To attribute this primarily to the human merit of those separated from us would be a scandal; it can only be said in view of the Holy Spirit who operates as he wills. This approach allows us to see first what unites us. This is to give glory to God and to recognize him in history working so wonder fully even in those separated from us as to the necessary order of authority. Only by thus giving glory to the Holy Spirit, by venerating him by our" respect for others, can we hope to give the witness of faith and charity which can 'make the Church attractive to human beings. FREEDOM AND AUTIlORITY ACCORDING TO 'LUMEN GENTIUM' 11 The role of the Holy Spirit is also explained in the chapter on the universal vocation to sanctity. It -is to the glory of the Holy Spirit that the Church believes that not only priests and religious, but all the baptized, anointed by the Spirit, are called to sanctity of life. In the chapter on religious it is explained that the spirit of the beatitudes, by way of the evangelical counsels, fosters the real development of the person in the freedom of the children of God and thus makes them wit nesses to the universal vocation to holiness.
IV. THE EMPHATIC TEACHING ON FREEDOM IN THE CHAPTER ON TIlE LAITY A very explicit teaching not only on the role of the laity but also on their responsibility in the spirit of freedom was very necessary. While this was not a denied truth, it was certainly a most under-developed truth in past centuries. The role and the spirit of freedom in the Chris tian laity must be considered within the temporal order and within the Church. Under both aspects it must become ever more manifest, as paragraph thirty-six expresses it,_ that:
Christ has communicated his royal power to his disciples that they may be constituted in royal freedom and that by true self-denial and a holy life they might conquer the reign of sin in themselves (cf. Rom. 6:12), and by serving Christ in their fellowmen, they might by humility and patience lead their brethren to that King, to serve whom is to reign. Here is taught clearly that the constitution and status of the laity is royal freedom, but not less emphasis is placed upon the true nature and the conditions of this Christian and human freedom. At least in some Catholic countries it has seemed sometimes that the laity is even in the temporal order only the instrument of clerical author ity. This was never totally the case; but there has been a sad reality behind the bad image. Through the activities of Catholics in other countries, as for instance in the United States, and now especially through the Constitution on Lumen Gentium, it is made evident that in fact Catholics in temporal society and human affairs are no less free than others - in fact they can and should be more free. It is not just in private and individual matters that they can and must promote a spirit of freedom. They must promote genuine freedom by the fulfilment of their specific role in the world, by their right attitude toward the temporal order, as paragraph thirty-six of Lumen Gentium points out: The faithful must learn the deepest meaning and the value of all '" 12 BERNARD HARING
creation. Through them rhe world may be permeated by rhe spirit of Christ and.it may more effectively fulfil! its purpose in justice, charity and peace ••• By their competence in secular disciplines and by rheir activity, elevated from wirhin by rhe grace of Christ, let rhem vigor ously contribute their efforts, so that created good may be perfected ••• and may in its own way be conducive to universal progress in human and Christian freedom.
This text of rhe Council shows that rhe spirit of freedom must be 'incamated' in rhe very structures of society, in the culture, in civil rights, in rhe economic structures. The Christian has no right to boast of his liberty if he does not also do his best to guarantee rhe liberty of orhers, of all citizens, of all colours.We all know that besides good laws, we need many other changes i)efore we can assert rhat we grant the same fundamental liberties to all. Only through a common effort can liberty be promoted and protected in the world. But a common effort is unthinkable wirhout courageous initiative from individuals and groups. Christians should not always trail behind others in these noble efforts. In rhis connection, we may also recall the discussions in St. Peter's on the Church in the Modem World. The draft proposed to the third ses sion spoke very emphatically on the dignity and rights of rhe free person and on the obligation of the fairhful to promote freedom in the world. Not only that most courageous Patriarch Maximos, but also many others of the Council Fathers asked how we can assert that Christians are promoting the dignity and freedom of the person in all social structures if we ourselves follow a legalistic approach to m,orals and by' this stifle almost every generous and courageous initiative. The response to this criticism was already anticipated constructively by chapter four of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, where it is insisted that the laity must have rhe necessary freedom of action also within the Church. The progress of true freedom in rhe world supposes that mankind ever acknowledges the dominion of God over all provinces of life. But, it is not the same thing to speak of the dominion of God and of His Christ, and of the competence and dominion of the Church, and especially of the hierarchy. Not everything which is subject to God is subject also to the Church. The temporal order, as such, is not subject to the Church, nor to rhe hierarchy, nor to rhe whole organized People of God. It is, how ever, ~he obligation of the Church to preach the gospel of the saving dominion of God over all things. The laity should give the witness of the free sons of God, by not trying to establish their own dominion, or FREEDOM AND AUTIlORlTY ACCORDING TO 'LUMEN GENTIUM' 13 the dominion of the hierarchy, but to serve the common good, and by so doing acknowledge the dominion of God. The spirit of responsibility, freedom and fortitude must distinguish the laity also within the Church. Paragraph thirty-seven speaks of the dialogue of the laity with the hierarchy in this same spirit of fortitude and charity: The laity should openly reveal to their pastors their needs and desires with that freedom and confidence which is fitting for sons of God and brothers in Christ. They are, by reason of the knowledge, competence and outstanding ability they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church ••• Let it always be done in truth, courage and prudence, with reverence and charity towards those who by their sacred office represent the person of Christ. It is important to see here that the laity is not addressed as children of the Church. They are called _sons of God and brothers in Christ. This are not a paternalistic approach. They are to reveal their convictions, their desires, with freedom and confidence. The histoty of the Council will show that the first draft underlined almost exclusively that if the laity dared to express .an opinion it was to be done with the greatest humility and with entire submission; but in the final draft, the views of the laity are to be expressed with 'truth, courage, prudence and charity.' In this chapter, as in the whole Constitution, we see the true meaning of obedience - the obedience not of slaves, but of the friends of Christ who are doing their best to reveal their intention~ and needs in a spirit of frankness and absolute sincerity. There is no opposition between such obedience and freedom. Obe dience must be seen as the privileged way to the spirit of the sons of God, and pastors must promote and protect this freedom in the Church by their own docility to the spirit and by their readiness to learn. Let pastors recognize and promote the dignity as well as the respon sibility of the laity in the Church. Let them willingly seek their pru dent advice. Let them confidently assign duties to them in the service of the Church, allowing them freedom and room for action. Further, let pastors encourage lay people so that they may undertake tasks on their own initative. Attentively in Christ, let them consider with fatherly love the suggestions, projects and desires proposeci"-by the laity. Furthermore, let pastors iespectfully acknowledge that just freedom whi& belongs to everyone in this earthly city. 14 BERNARD HA RING This is an application of collegiality, not just a lay apostolate under a mandatum, as executors of the pastors' initiatives. Pastors must not only acknowledge that the laity has in temporal affairs a competence which the clergy does not possess, but also that the laity has an impor tant role within the life of the Church. The text on the laity expresses what may be expected as a result of this spirit of liberty: A great many wonderful things are to be hoped for from this familiar dialogue between the laity and their pastors: in the laity a strength ened sense of personal responsibility, a renewed enthusiasm, a more ready application of their talents to the projects of their pastors. The latter, on the other hand, can more clearly and more incisively come to decisions regarding both spiritual and temporal matters ••• All the laity as a community and each one according to his ability must nourish the world with the fruits of the Spirit. Not the least of these fruits of the Spirit is the liberty of the sons of God. This is related to the spirit of risk and to fortitude. It is not the spirit of Magdalen, not yet converted to total faith in the resurrection, but complaining that they had taken away the Lord, namely His body. Before she went to the Apostles to give them her witness that he had risen, she had to go through this crisis. So a laity that has freedom as well as humility and docility within the Church will become witnesses to the resurrection and the life of the Living God. We should not at all be discouraged by the present 'Crisis' in the Church. We do better to see here-in the un-avoidable growing pains, the pangs of childbirth of an age which will be characterized by a more developed spirit of initiative and responsibility.
BERNARD HARING MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
THE argument of this paper is that the essential difference between the philosophy of history of the young Marx and of the mature Marx is one of method and, hence, of the logical status of his conclusions. The young Marx argues the case for his view of history on the basis of an analysis, derived from a Hegelian model, of the structure of the world. The method of argument is metaphysical, and, hence, its con sequences, if. valid, would be necessary. The mature Marx argues the case on the basis of an analysis, con ceived as an analogy of Datwin's model of evolution of the factual course of history. The method of argument is empirical, and, hence, its consequences, if valid, cannot be 'necessary', although it might be claimed they have a scientific certainty, or at least a high degree of probability. The need to distinguish at all between these two phases of Marx's thought has been a much-debated question in recent years. It arose as a result ·of the publication of the writings of the young Marx, especially the so-called 'philosophic-economic manuscripts' written by Marx at the age of 26 in 1844 and printed for the first time in Germany in 1932, that is, in historical conditions which resulted in their not receiving close attention until recently. The discussion of these works by Communist, Existentialist, Socialist and Catholic scholars has led to no agreement, neither as to their importance, nor as to their significance, although it has been vast in extent. One group of scholars, which includes among others perhaps the best known French Marxist scholar, Lefevre, (Pour connaitre la Pensee de Karl Marx, 1956, p. 59), a Socialist leader J.P. Mayer (Introduction to the Oeuvres Philosophiques, ed. Costes, Vol. IV, p. xiv-xv), a Catholic economist, Andre Piettre (Marx et le Marxisme, 1957, p. 11), maintain that these 'philosophic-economic manuscripts' constitute 'a revelation', an 'overturning' of accepted ideas about Marx; they are' fundamental' to the understanding of Marxist thought: the manuscripts show that Marx's achievement is NOT a 'model' for the interpretation of history ~s ul ci mately determined by economic factors and a 'theory' for bringing about socia.l revoluti~ based on this model, but a philosophy of history based
15 16 PETER S ERRACINO INGLOTT on a metaphysical picture of the human condition. And this 'humanism' which has been discovered in the hitherto un studied works of the young Marx, according to another Marxist scholar, Henri Arvon, has 'for our contemporaries a fascination and attraction far greater than that of the historical and economic parts of his doctrine' (Le MaTxisme, ed. Colin, 1955, p.67). This trend to interpret Marx not as an exponent of a theory of economic determinism - (namely that the inner contradictions of capitalism must inevitably lead to its collapse) - but as the proponent of a philosophy of man (in the light of which a society can be brought about, which would allow maximum human development) was already foreshadowed in the polemical works of Lukacz, and Gramsci, in the 1930's, against the then dominant stalinist interpretation. Lukacz and Gramsci were the first to emphasise the importance of Marx's early writings and of his Hegelian heritage. For these early writings are closely related to Hegel. In fact the study of Marx's relationship to Hegel, and the suspicion that this relationship differed between the earlier and the later, Marxist writings raised the question of the coherence between the earlier and the later writings (especially Capital) of Marx. The problem was closely studied by Louis Althusser who has reached original conclusions. Althusser holds there was a radical break in Marx's thought (about 1846-47) and althqugh Marx went on using the same terms in the later as in his earlier works, he changed their signi ficance by adopting a different conceptual framework. Most of the inter preters of Marx as a 'humanist' - for instance Calvez (La pensee de KaTl MaTx, p.319-326) Bigo (MaTxisme et Humanisme, p.498-499) and Rubel (KaTl MaTx, p. 365-367) maintained that there was a unity of thought throughout the whole of Marx's lifework, and that Marx's later work was a direct development and application of the earlier works, especially the Manuscripts of 1844. It is certain that Marx' s thinking was not sta tic, but constanrly developing, as is true of most thinkers, who rarely present us with a ready-made, complete system of thought from the start. The question about Marx is whether there was a definite shift from a humanist frame of reference to a different one, rather than consistent development.
THE EARLY MARX
In order to present what I have to say about the philosophy of history of the early Marx as clearly and succinctly as possi"le, this section MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 17 will be divided into two stages: (1) an outline of the Hegelian Model and an attempt at showing that it is a transformation of the Biblical Model as a result of the Cartes ian dualist concept of man; (2) an outline of the Marxist Model and an attempt at showing it is a transformation of the Hegelian model as a result of a return to a unitary concept of man.
(1) THE HEGELIAN MODEL Marx has said about Hegel that his essential achievement was to' see history as a process in which man is alienated from himself and his work and then finally comes to his own once more'. It has often been noted that this vision of history looks very much like a non-theological version of the Biblical vision of History. (a) 'Alienation' By man being 'alienated' from himself and his work, Hegel means something very similar to what the Bible means by the 'fallen' state of man. He means that man is conscious of a double division: First: a division within himself, because he does not obey the moral law he makes for himself, and as a result he has a troubled conscience; the moral law is seen as external to himself. Secondly: a division between himself as an individual and society, because he does not live up to the standards established by society. Now society, like the moral law, is created by man, but man comes to see it, again like the moral law, as something external to him, opposed to him as an individual. This process of seeing things which are of man's own making as ex ternal to him, this process by which man ceases to recognise his own products as his own, Hegel called 'objectification'. (b) 'Coming into one's own' Hegel, like the Bible, held up the hope of a liberation from this alienated condition, not in the form of a Redeemer, but arising out of the very opposition at the heart of human existence which he was stress ing. The typical example of this which he gives is the famous dialectic of master-and-slave. Between the master and the slave there is opposi- tion; the slave's will is made subservient to the master, but the •master becomes in turn• dependent on the salve's work. They are, in fact, inter 18 PETER SERRACINO INGLOTT dependent and this is generative of a sort of equality between them. Thus the very inequality established by the division between Master-and slave generates its opposite - an equality of a more basic kind. This is the form in which redemption comes to alienated man in the Hegelian picture of history. Why did Hegel feel the need for this re-statement of the Biblical vision of history and how do the two statements differ? (i) The point of it is, very clearly, the elimination of the Biblical concept of a Personal God who transcends the total process of history. For Hegel, the absolute cause of the whole process of change (which is all we know through experience of what there is) is no longer judged to be, as by traditional philosophy, a cause which transcends the total process of change; it is identified with this very process. Traditional religion is judged by Hegel to be an expression of the alienation of man: an example of the objectivisation-process. Instead of considering God as immanent in the history of mankind, instead of identifying Him with the process of self-consciousness in humanity itself, men objectivise God as a separate person, other than themselves; likewise, the redemption process is 'objectivised' in the person of a redeemer. (ii) The root of this Hegelian doctrine is, in my opinion, his anthro pology - that is - his view that the essence of man is purely spiritual, and not embodied spirit. It is the prejudice that matter does not belong to the essence of man, which is constituted solely by his self-consciousness, and hence that 'objectivisation' is a symptom of man falling below his nature. Hegel had to restate the Biblical interpretation of history in different terms, because for him the essence of man is consciousness. Hence: the tragedy and future triumph had to be restated as taking place wholly in the realm of thought. The concept of the Fall is turned into the concept of Alienation - in other words, it consists in consider ing ideas which are purely subjective as objects - because the essence of man is purely spiritual and all human creations, like the moral law and social ethics, belong purely to the ideal realm but are turned into 'objects' with an independent existence, external to man. The concept of the Redemption is turned into that of 'Coming-into-0r;.e's own' - be- MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 19 cause it is made to consist of this process by which man comes again to recover his pure self-consciousness, to know himself not in terms of his distinctness, separation and opposition to other things, but in him self; in other words mankind will know itself as God, as the Man-God 'objectivised' by traditional religion in Christ.
(2) THE MARXIST MODEL Feuerbach had already made his famous statement - in opposition to Hegel's view of man's essence as being purely self-consciousness - that 'man also eats'. Following him, the young Marx, having said that the essential achievement of Hegel was to have seen history as the process of man's alienation and his coming back to himself, went on to point out that his essential mistake was precisely that Hegel described these processes as taking place purely in the ideal realm, in the field of man's consciousness, and not in the real world, in the field of man's total existence, as an eating as well as a thinking animal. Marx wrote: 'The human essence, man, is for Hegel simply self-consciousness. All the alienation of essential humanity is therefore nothing but the alienation of self~consciousness. But the truth is that the alienation of self-consciousness is nothing but an expression, reflected in the form of knowledge and thought, of the real alienation of man's true being'. What is the Marxist concept of alienation? Marx connects the condition of alienation with work. (See note). Work should ideally achieve three obj ects:
(i) the transformation of matter: objects which have no value become transformed by work into something which serves a useful human purpose and hence acquire value; (ii) the development of man himself: through his work he developes his abilities and expresses his personality in his products; (iii) the forging of society: due to the di"ision of labour which, through specialisation, creates the interdependence of men and hence con stitutes the basis of society. But, in fact, this nature of work is not being fulfilled.
(i) matter is being transformed, but the conditions of the orga'ttisation of work after industrialisation are such that the second and third purposes a'}e being frustrated. 20 PETER SE RRACINO INGLOTT
(ii) Man is reduced by repetitive work to the execution of tasks which make no demands on his mind or the exercise of his power of deci sion; hence his specific abilities are not developed, but stunted. (iii) The organisation of work under capitalism is such as to generate opposition between the worker and the capitalist. Hence instead of forging solidarity, it generates a conflict of interests, and becomes a potentially disruptive rather than unifying force in society. This frustration of the nature of work is what basically constitutes the 'alienation' of man. It is not just something which happens in the realm of thought; it happens in real life. It is not JUSt a phenomenon of consciousness; it affects man's entire life in all its aspects. 'Aliena tion' is not something which occurs on the 'ideal' plane, but at all levels of the real: it affects the whole human being. Since we have here a contrast between what nature requires and the actual organisation of work, violence is bound to erupt out 0 f the con trast. The actual organisation of work is not in accordance with the natural order. On the contrary, it is a violation of it, a frustration of it, which is bound to produce a reaction. The bent branch will shoot back - violently - to the position which its inbuilt dynamism makes it seek. This will be the process of 'man's-coming-into-his-own', but it will not occur as Hegel thought merely by the growth of man's consciousness; it will occur through an actual transformation of the conditions of real life, in particular of the organisation of work; in other words, through the advent of the communist society, which is precisely this re-organisation of human relationships in such a way that work will not only operate a transformation of matter such that it acquires value for man, but also the development of man's own powers and of human solidarity. It will be seen that what Marx has rejected of Hegel is essentially the dualist concept of man as made up of two radically different components - matter and mind - of which mind is what constitutes the human es sence; hence that mind is the l?phere in which the drama of 'alienation' and 'coming-into-one's-own' is played out. For Marx, man is a totality, a single substance and the drama occupies the entire sphere of his existence. Marx is thus repudiating the Cartesian dualism of which Hcgelianism is the final development and returning to the unitary con cept t!j1 which both the Aristotelean philosophic tradition and the Bible subscribe. This is an important reason for regarding Marx as one of the founding fathers of contemporaty philosophy which is iharacterised by the rejection of the Cartesian dualism. MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 21 However, Marx does not reject with the doctrine that man's essence is consciousness the other Hegelian doctrine that the meaning of history is not to be sought in a transcendent cause but in its immanent diale ctic. He goes on holding that just as 'alienation' is to be analysed in terms of the contrast which can be seen between what man's nature demands and actual social organisation, the determining factor 0 f which is the organisation of work relationships, likewise man's 'coming-into-his own' is to be analysed in terms of the corresponding social re-organisa tion around its crucial point work. Hence, the religious interpretation of history contained in the Bible is still rejected as a manifestation of man's 'alienation'. It will be seen that the structure of the argument is still 'metaphysi cal'. Essentially it runs as follows: Because human nature is such, it requires such-and-such conditions for its fulfilment. Actual conditions are not what is required: they are bound to be changed, because human nature cannot be frustrated indefinitely, and there is bound to come about a situation in which it can be fulfilled. The future foreseen can, on the basis of this kind of argument built on the nature of things, be predicted as inevitable. This appears to have been the nature 0 f Marx's argument before 1848.
THE MATURE MARX In his later works, Marx changes the method of his argument. He no longer builds it on a thesis about what man's nature is and the con trast between the conditions required for its fulfilment and the conditions existing in capitalist society as the spring which will inevitably produce revolutionary change. Marx now abandons the model of metaphysical argument he had borrowed from Hegel and takes up the model of scienti fic argument which is used, for instance, to establish the theory of evolution. In the preface which Engels wrote to the English edition of the Com munist Manifesto in 1888, he acknowledged that the central proposition had come from Marx, and he further asserted that 'this proposition ••• in my opinion is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology'. The central proposition of the Manifesto has in fact, a close con nexion with the theory of evolution: it is the theory of the s<&ense of history. 22 PETER S ERRACINO INGLOTr
The evolution of the animal species out of the vegetal world grown out of inaminate matter, once it has taken place, makes us discern a direction in the process which leads from inanimate matter to man. Like wise, the history of the world, as yet unfinished but already quite long, makes us see a direction in the process which appears, in fact, to be the gradual but increasing separation of man from nature through the growth of his scientific knowledge which makes it possible for him to master, rather than conform to, the laws of the natural world, and the similarly increasing separation of man from man through the multiplica tion of class-divisions and conflict, both of which processes interact on each other. This appears, to Marx, to be the direction which the study of the past as it has taken place shows. Here, however, it is extremely important to hold a distinction very clearly in mind: to assert that the study of history after it has taken place reveals that events have taken mankind in a certain direction is not the same as to assert that there is a purpose behind the process, that the direction actually followed is the execution of an intention immanent in the process and due to a transcendent mind. The second assertion only follows if God exists (as the Bible holds) or if History were itself God (as Hegel holds). But Marx does not uphold either of these views. Hence he cannot pass immediately from the first assertion that the study of the past snows that events have taken mankind in a certain direction to the second assertion that this direction is inbuil t in the process itself. The Marxist idea of the sense of history is more subtle and more com plex. One has to distinguish two factors. First: there are a number of elements which interect according to the laws of chance; secondly, there are human purposes which intervene and modify the play of these laws of chance. These laws are those of the calculus of probabilities which, as the word implies, means that even without human intervention, it is not pure chance which produces results. For instance: our planet earth is the realisation of one of the many possibilities opened up by the breaking-up of a galaxy, and there is every chance if such breaking-ups are sufficiently frequent for similar planets to come about. Likewise, given the constitution of our planet, the appearance of life becomes one of the probable results of the combination of the material elements in it, and stfccessively the appearance of animal and then human life are probable results. Marx is not very impressed by the apparent harmony of MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 23 these results; for first we know hardly anything about the possibilities which were not in fact verified, and, secondly, each realisation in fact restricts the range of possibilities for the future. Thus, on the one hand, the direction taken by events only appears after they have taken place; but on the other hand, the probability is that once a direction has been taken, it will be followed, because the range of other possibilities has been restricted by the first step taken. This is what happens in nature. Now, according to Marx, the same happens in the development of society. It is because of this that Marx feels authorised to predict the quasi-inevitability of the advent of socialism. Neither slow-downs nor regressions are excluded; but it is deemed most unlikely that a move ment, set in a certain direction for thousands of years, will stop short of a sudden without warning. Besides, it is also evident that in human history, human purposes will intervene in the process, and again the likelihood is that these will re-in force the natural movement of social evolution. Once men understand that the advent of socialism, already inbuil t in the direction taken by events so far, is to their great advan tage, they will add their revolutionary force to the evolutionary trend. The chances of the realisation of socialism will be multiplied and the range of other possibilities considerably restricted. Hence, the sense of history which appears only when it has been already a long time underway implies neither the determinism of the pagan conception of Fate nor the omnipotence of a divinely-established plan, but the play of the laws of probability in which both are in a certain way reflected. On the other hand, I hold that another criticism of Marxism retains all its validity. This is the Marxist postulation of an end of history - i.e. its assumption that the communist society represents the absolute fulfilment of society, the term of human progress. Such a postulation is, on the basis of the interpretation of history, an illegitimate anthropo centrism. There is nothing, outside revelation, against the hypothesis that man represents an earthly impasse in the process of evolution and that elsewhere the process will produce infinitely superior results.
A Note on Alienation The concept of alienation figures much more prominentlYlll in the earlier than in the later writings (although Pierre Naville has probably exaggerated ir", his emphasis on the absence of philosophical premises 24 PETER SERRACINO INGLOTT in Capital) and still more prominently in the expositions of Marx's thought provided by his 'humanist' interpreters. The prominence given to this concept has provoked protests, such. as that expressed by J .M. Domenach in his article: 'Pour en finir avec l'alienation' (in Espirit, Dec. 1965). Nonetheless it is central to the 1844 philosophico-economic manuscripts; it is not by any means a crystal-clear concept and the efforts made to elucidate it have not produced identical results; it is, also, the essential connecting link in the relationship between Marx and Hegel, the study of which led Althusser to assert his thesis that the humanist reading of the later works in the light of the earlier cannot be justified, because it fails to note that the terminological continuity masks a radical break in the thought due to precisely the adoption of a new attitude towards Hegel. It is therefore, worth devoting some attention to this concept. There is considerable disagreement as to whence Marx borrowed it. There are three possible sources: 1. According to Lukacz, it has a purely economic-juridical pedigree. It is already found in this sense in the writings of the English econo mists and in both 'natural law' and 'social contract' theorists. It sig nifies a transfer of property. Hence the 'alienation' of the worker in capitalist society would mean simply that the product of the workers was being 'expropriated' by the capitalist. But if this was all there was to it, would not the concept of 'exploitation' have been adequate? 2. The term is also used in psycho-pathological contexts. It indicates a degradation of consciousness. This interpretation has been propounded by Gabel in Esprit (Oct. 1951) and by Igor Caruso. Here the concept of 'alienation' is associated with and taken to imply necessarily self deception, 'the willing mystification of oneself', 'false consciousness', a passive acceptance of Standverlust. It is asserted that as long as there is no consent to the conditions in which one finds oneself, no acceptance of the siruation, there can be no real alienation. Capitalist society only 'alienates' the worker when the worker accepts its so called 'laws' as natural laws. If the working-class does not make this identification, its condition will be a motive for rebellion, and not of enslavement. The willing consent is, however, not all: it will only amount to alienation when it leads to the illusion that, in fact, the con dition '6f servitude is a sharing of power. 3. According to Hyppolite, Wahl, Cornu, etc. it has a religious-meta fII MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 25 physical ongtn. In fact, it is related to biblical concept of man's fall and the subsequent condition of man. This concept is 'desacralized' or 'secularized' by Marx (following Hegel, Feuerbach and Moses Hess), but it retains its 'prophetic', 'messianic', 'apocalyptic' and 'mystical' overtones, particularly in the descriptions of the end of 'alienation' in the communist society, which does not appear in the early writings as the inevitable end-product of the inbuil t dialectic of human history, but as the manifestation of man's true nature to man himself and as a step ping-stone to further progress. There is no doubt that Marx's early writings retain a tone close to Feuerbach's religiosity and idealism; and it is precisely Althusser's thesis that in the earlier works, Marx's at titude to Hegel is close to that of Feuerbach, while in the later it is different.
PETER SERRACINO INGLOTT PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 11
PONTIFICAL vestments and insignia, namely vestments and insignia used by bishops to enhance their dignity rather than their priestly ministry, are the mitre, the pallium, the gloves, the buskins and sandals, the tunic and the dalmatic worn under the chasuble, and the gremial veil; also the pectoral cross, the ring, the crozier, the formale, the liber canon is and the bugia, the silver ewer and basin, and the archiepiscopal cross. 29 The instruction of the Congregation of Rites of the 21st June 1968 has brought about several changes in the u.se of the above-m en-
29 Besides these vestments the Pope also uses the fanon, the subcinctorium, the papal cope, and the tiara. The janon is so described by Pope Innocent III in his De mysterio Missae (I, 53): 'Romanus pontifex post albam et cingulum assumit orale, quod circa caput involvit et replicat super humeros, legalis pontificis ordinem sequens, qui post lineam strictam et zonam induerunt ephod id est super-humerale'. Actually it is the anagolaion or amice which in the eighth century was put over the albj only later, between the tenth and twelfth century, in imitation of the usage outside Rome, was the amice put on under the alb. It was only when the identification of the fanon with the amice was lost that the Pope began using the amice under the alb and the fanon over the alb - this was in the fifteenth century. The term janon is of late originj according to Braun (Catholic Encyclopoedia vol. V,p. 785) it is derived from the late Latin jano, from pannus 1Ci1vO~~ cloth, woven fabric. Of white silk since the late Middle Ages, it was ornamented with narrow gold or coloured stripes woven in the cloth since the thirteenth centurYj square in shape up to the fifteenth century it took its present shape in the sixteenth. The subcinctorium is so described by Durand in his Pontifical: 'Habet simi litudinem manipuli et dependet a cingulo in latere sinistro'. Originally it served to secure the stole to the girdle, and later on developed into the form of a maniple and became just an ornamental vestment. In the thirteenth century it was used by all bishops, and in some places also by priests; today it is worn only by the Pope on the girdle at a solemn pontifical mass. It seems to be of Gallican origin and must have spread over to Italy about the close of the first millenium (see notes 21 and 26). The papal cope (mantum papale) is similar to the Roman cope but with a long train; tl:!e Pope uses it when assisting from the throne at a solemn ceremony and when he solemnly enters St. Peter's Basilica. The tiara: efr. note 62.
26 PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 27
tioned vestments and insignia,29a and it would be interesting to discuss these changes, taking into consideration the origin and development of the various vestments and insignia just mentioned. But before discussing each of the items mentioned above, one should also trace the develop ment of the bishop's seat, which has always been held in veneration from the earliest centuries. The bishop's seat has now acquired its old designation of 'cathedra': this term, which originally indicated the seat used by the bishop in his church, was later on transferred to the bishop's see,30 and later still it designated the Episcopal church itself, the principalis cathedra being the bishop's church as opposed to the other churches; but it was only in the tenth century that the term 'cathedral' was used absolutely for the principal church of the diocese, and then only in the West. 31 Early writers, it seems, used indiscriminately the terms 'throne' and 'cathedra' for the bishop's seat, although actually there was a distinc tion between the two terms: 'cathedra' was the more proper term to designate the bishop's chair, while 'throne' seems to have been later on considered a more appropriate term for the chair of an archbishop, patriarch, pope or sovereign prince. 32 The term 'throne' was also used to
29a The decree and the instruction do not mention at all the non-liturgical vest ments of the various prelates, but a reform must be expected soon as the Apostolic Letter Pontificalis Domus of the 28th March 1968 mentions such a reform. 30 The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London 1908) mentions several instances of such a meaning (s.v. Cathedra p. 320); one example must suffice: 'Licinio autem urbis Turonicae defuncto episcopo, Dinifius cathedram episco palem ascendit' (Historia Francorum, Ill, 2). 31 'Ecclesia mater' or 'ecclesia matrix' or 'principalis cathedra' were the titles given to the principal church of the diocese in the decrees of various local councils from the sixth century onwards, while 'tituli' or 'eccle siae dioe esanae' were the titles given to the parish churches (Cfr. Dictionary of Christian anti quities s. v. Cathedra and Cathedral p. 320). 32 The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (s.v. Throne p.1960) gives the fol lowing example of this distinction from a collect used in the consecration of the Pope when already a bishop, before he is placed on the papal seat by the senior cardinal·bishop·:
33 Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History speaks of the bishop's throne as the ~11lkoc. xoc.~ epavov u'!!l1AOV (VII, 30,9), while in a letter of the emperor Constantine to Chrestus bishop of Syracuse, quoted by Eusebius in his history (X, 5, 23) priests are distinguished from bishops by the phrase ~x 1:0U 5SU1:8POU epav OU. 34 De praescriptione haereticorum (36, 1): 'percurre ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident' - unle ss the phrase 'cathedrae apostolorum' should be understood not as literally referring to the chairs but to the apostolic succession of the bishops of the sees men tioned (Cfr. D.C.A. s. v. cathedra p. 320). 3sEccIesia.stical history VII, 19 Tov yoc.p 'Ioc.xw~ov 8povov ••• S~ c; 5supo 7tSCPUAoc.YIk8VOV ot 1:1')5s xoc.1:oc. 5~oc.50Xl1V 7tSp~87tOV1:SC; &.OSAcpO~ croc.cpwC; 1:0~C; 7toc.cr~v e7tl,osCXVUV1:oc.~ ol ov 7tSPI, 1:0UC; &.yCouC; cx.vopoc.C; 1:0U eSOcp~AOUC; 8VSXSV O'L 1:S 7tG.Aoc.~ xoc.l, ot si C; 11lka C; 80CjlSaV 1:S xoc.l, &.7tocr~soucrl, cr8~oc.C;. 36 Prudentius (Peristephanon. XII, 225-226) speaks thus of the bishop's seat: Fronte sub adversa gradibus sublime tribunal tollitur, antistes praedicat unde deum. Fronte sub adversa would be the upper end of the apse. 37 'Oportet itaque ut in congregatione Christianorum praepositi plebis eminentius sedeant, ut ipsa sedes distinguantur, et eorum officium saris appareat'. (S. Augustini Sermo XCI, 5). 38, ••• surgit pontifex •• , et vadit de dextra parte altaris ad sedem suam et diaconi' cum ipse hinc et inde, stantes et aspicientes contra orientem'. (Ordo Romanu'!l IV, 18). The change was brought about, according' to Andrieu (L es Ordines Romani du Moyen Age, vol. II, Louvain, 1948, pp. 144-146) by the fact that in countries using the Gallican liturgy, churches wer~ orientated, i.e. PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 29 In the first centuries, it seems, the bishop's chair was none other than the curule chair covered with cloths and cushions: 39 in the Vita S. Cypriani we read that Cyprian's chair was a sedile ligneum sectum covered with a linen cloth. From works of art of the early Christian centuries we might perhaps conclude that the bishop's cathedra was a chair with arms and back, while sovereign princes had chairs without arms and with a low straight back - this type of chair might have developed from the Roman bisellium, a seat of honourable distinction which was a sort of wide stool without arms or back.40 During all the Middle Ages up to the fourteenth century, the bishop's seat seems to have been a simple stool or chair covered with cushions and cloths, perhaps something similar to the foldstool: 41 at least this is what one would conclude from the very limited number of miniatures in MSS representing bishops and popes. churches were built in such a way that the people facing the altar would face the East; even the celebrant had to face the East and so he took his place at the altar not facing the people (as was the custom in Rome), but with his back to the people and facing the East; this was the position of the celebrant at the altar, with which Amalar (Cfr. De Ecclesiasticis officiis, Ill, 9) was accusto med - he knew of no other position of the celebrant at the altar. The change of position of the celebrant at the altar, brought about a change in the position of the celebrant's seat; if the seat was at the upper end of the apse the celebrant would have to go round the altar and pass through the ranks of the clergy to go to his seat - to avoid such complications the seat was placed at the right hand side of the altar as was the custom in Rome when the Pope was substituted by a bishop at the celebration of the Eucharist. The-place behind the altar remained empty and it was therefore considered a very convenient place where to put the seven candlesticks after the gospel, so as !fot to be in the way during the offertory procession: '(post evangelium) revertit diaconus ad altare et ipsa cereostata ante eum et ponunt ea re.tro altare, seu et reliqua caereostata' (Ordo Romanus IV, 34). The Ordo Romanus IV was compiled in the ninth century by a person whose intention was to introduce the Roman rite of the Mass into Gaul: he used the Ordo Romanus I, adopting it to the particular circumstances of his country. 39 St. Augustine in his letter to Maximinus, a Donatist bishop (Ep. 23, 3) says: In futuro Christi iudicio nec absidae gradatae, nec cathedrae velatae ••• ; while Pacianus (Ep. 2, 3) speaks of a linteata sedes and Pontius the biographer of St. Cyprian refers to Cyprian's seat as a sedile ligneum sectum which had to be covered with a linen cloth. (Cfr. Righetti, Storia Liturgica, vol. I, Milan, 1950, p.383-385). 40 Cfr. Smith-Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, London 1208 s. v. Throne p. 1900. 41Cfr. Salmon, Les insignes du Pontife dans le Tit romam, chp.III, p.69. It> 30 J. LVPI From the fourteenth century onwards various manuscripts testify to the existence of a curtain behind the bishop's chair; this curtain later on was extended over the seat and formed a baldacchino: miniatures of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries witness this development, which nevertheless is not universal, although it can be noticed in several places; in fact the pontifical of the period, up till the sixteenth century; still speaks of the foldstool as the bishop's seat, placed near the altar on the epistle side.42 In the seventeenth century the bishop's throne with the baldacchino is the rule, and its place is the end of the apse or the gospel side of the altar. The Caeremoniale Episcoponum of Clement VIII, published in 1600, expressly says: 'Forma sedis eat praealta et sublimis, sive ex ligno, sive ex marmore, aut, alia materia fabricata in modum cathedrae et throni immc>bilis, quales in multis ecc1esiis antiquis videmus; quae debet tegi et ornari aliquo panno serico concolori cum aliis paramentis, non tamen aureo, nisi episcopus esset cardinalis; et super eam umbraculum seu baldachinum eiusdem colori~ appendi poterit, dummodo et super altari aliud si~ile vel etiam sumptuosius appendatur' .43
42The Roman Pontifical of 1485 expressly says that for Mass 'paratur faldis torium, id est episcopalis sedes', and Peter de Grassi in his De caeremoniis cardinalium et episcoporum in eorum dioecesibus (written in the first years of the fourteenth century) says: 'In hoc nostro iure passim, et communiter sedem praelad cuiusvis pontificaliter celebrantis, non quidem amplam et eminentem, sed pressiorem ac sacris celebrationibus dicatam, similem curruli i11i, quae _in antiquis nurnismatibus inspicitur: caeremonistae autem faldistorium appellant ••• sads est quod per hanc qualemcumque dictionem sedes designatur pontifi calis celebrationibus dicata, et haec semper locari debet ad cornu altaris sinistram,_ quod est Epistolae; ita ut ipse celebr-ans habeat ad dexteram suam altare •• .' (quoted from Salmon, l.c. p.70 n.70) Peter de Grassi presupposes the existence of a throne for the Papal legate on the right hand side of the altar, when the legate is not celebrating Mass, but only assisting: this throne has two steps and adorned with carpets and curtains but no baldacchino. The Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna, according to de Grassi, had a right to such a throne, when not celebrating, but he- usually occupied the .first choir stall, i.e. the one nearest the altar; which for de Grassi was not consonant with the dignity of a cardinal archbishop! for him the cardinal archbishop ought to have a throne on the right side if the altar when the Cardinal legate was absent, or a throne on the epistle side of the legate were present. Peter de Grassi was the master of ceremonies of Bologna cathedral before becoming master of ceremonies of Popes Julius II and Leo X. (Salmon, l.c. chp. III, p. 70). 43 Lib. Itc. 13, n. 3. In Malta the bishop's seat in its present form dates from 1659 at the time of Bishop Fra Giovanni Balaguer Camarasa. On the 9th April 1659 the Cathedral '" PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: TIiEIR ORIGIN AL'ID USE 31 Malta's Cathedral and Con-Cathedral have two thrones which date from the inception of British rule in Malta;H this is something excep-
Chapter discussed the proposal: 'se pare conveniente che a spese della Catted rale si facci il baldacchino per il Pontificale per Mons. Ill.mo nro vescovo. The Archdeacon, Don Faustino Xara, J .U.D. was in favour, 'perche serve per para mento', but Don Antonino Testaferrata did not agree 'che si facci il baldacchino perche non e stato mai in questa cattedrale e intende che la Chies a non e obbli gata farla perche mutando la sedia il successore pretended la sua insegna 0 vero metter il drappo a suoi gusti e percio non potendo pregiudicare la detta Chiesa ••• (Regestum Delib. Capit. III, 41 v, 42r). 440n the 12th May 1808, the Archbishop of Malta, Mgr.Ferdinando Mattei accept ed an arrangement proposed by Captain Ball, whereby, .inter alia, a throne was reserved for the King of England in the principal churches of Malta: 'Disposizioni del governo di Sua Maesta Britannica, alle quali si attende l'adesione del Vescovo di Malta prima del suo possesso: 1. Nelle Chiese principali, nel luogo medesimo ove avevano per il passato il loro trono i Principi dell' isola, vi sia un trono nel fondo del quale siano ricamate in tutta cerimonia le armi britanniche. 2. Il Governatore ossia Regio Civile Commissionario pro tempore portandosi in chiesa abbia una sedia ed un apparato distinto nel lato destro, ed abbia tutd gli onori che gli convengono come rappresentante di Sua Maesta e fuori della chiesa gli si usino tutti quei riguardi che si usavano ai Principi ossia Gran Mastri sotto l' andco governo • • •• Aderisco agli articoli premessi, e vi presto il mio pieno consenso in tutto quello che dipende da me. Oggi il 12 Maggio 1801 Fra Ferdinando Mattei Vescovo di Malta. The question of the Royal throne and the Governor's seat 'seems to have again arisen during the governorship of Sir Thomas Maitland who was puzzled with the whole affair as he was unaware of 'the etiquette on the subject'. The Grandmaster had his throne in St. John's on the right hand side of the altar within the sanctuary. In the early years of British rule it seems that the Civil Commissioner sometimes sat there on and sometimes did not but eventually the Archbishop considered it his own and the Civil Commissioner 'never went there'. The question of the Royal throne arose again when the bishop asked the Governor if he would attend the singing of a Ye Deum as a thanksgiving for the cessation of the plague on the 29th January 1814. Maitland pointed out that he had no right to sit on the throne, but it had to be kept vacant 'as the emblem of His Majesty's Sovereignty in these islands and it had to remain exactly where the Grandmaster's throne had prev iously been with His Ma jesry' s Arms displayed upon it'. Maitland, as governor, would sit on the right outside the sanctuary. The Archbishop concurred and erected his own throne on the left hand side of the altar, opposite to the Royal throne. (A.V. Laferla, British Mal&, vol. 1, Malta 1945, pp. 69, 114-115). %@ 32 J. LUPI tional as one of the thrones is the Royal throne, which, according to the Caeremoniale Episcoporum ought not to be within the sanctuary. Two, or even more, thrones within the sanctuary are permitted by the Caere moniale Episcoporum in certain cases, but only for bishops, legates and Cardinals. 45 With the new rules quite a number of changes have been brought about with regard to the bishop's seat: it may no longer be called a throne, but it ought to have its original name of cathedra to better manifest the teaching office of the bishop. The baldacchino disappears together with the idea of a throne, as such an idea is more convenient to the power and dignity of an emperor and a prince than to the pastoral and teaching office of a bishop. The three fixed steps leading to the bishop'S seat are no longer required; what is necessary now is that the bishop's seat should be so placed that the bishop is seen by all and that he is seen as really presiding over all the congregation. There should be only one bishop's seat in the sanctuary, as the seat is now no longer a sign of honour but only the seat of the 'president' of the Christian assembly, and therefore any bishop, even if he is not the diocesan bishop, while
45 Lib. I, chap. 13,4: Si forte aliquis S.R.E. Cardinalis Legatus de latere, vel non legatus, rei divinae interesset, convenit ei sedes episcopalis •.. ; Episco pus vero si celebrat, in faldistorio in cornu Epistolae; si non celebret, et chorus sit in Presybterio sub tribuna, sedebit in digniore parte chori. 5. Quod si Episcopus quoque osset S.R.E. Cardinalis, si legatus haberet sedem a latere Evangelii, sedebit quoque Episcopus Cardinalis non celebrans in eodem loco, et pIano, et sedibus aequalibus prope Legatum. 6. Eodem quoque modo sedebunt, si plures adessent Cardinales, dummodo Episcopus Cardinalis sit omnium postremo; Celebran s vero in faldistorio. 7. Si vero Legatus esset in sede episcopali sub tribuna, sedebit Episcopus Cardinalis, et alii Cardinales, si adessent, prope Legatum, .•• : ipse aute sim plex Episcopus sederet, vel ex opposito in se de humiliori; vel in digniori parte chori, aut in faldistodo ••• 8. Quod si Episcopus sit Cardinalis, et inters it alius, vel plures Cardinales non Legati, poterunt omnes ab eadem parte Evangelii, ubi solet esse sedes Episcopalis, sedere in sedibus aequalis, vel in digniori parte chod quando est sub tribuna; dummodo Cardinalis Episcopus sit omnium postremus et Episcopalia munia remittet exercenda Cardinali praesenti, vel si plures sint, priori in ordine ••• 9. Metropolitanus, absente Legato, vel alio Cardinali, habebit aliam sedem ex opposito in cornu Epistolae similiter ornatam, ut sedes episcopalis; alii vero Ep'scopi hospites sedebunt in digniori loco post Episcopum Diocesanum super omnes Canonicos. PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 33 presiding a liturgical service in the name and with the authority of the local bishop, is to occupy the bishop's seat; other bishops and prelates, even if higher in dignity than the celebrating bishop, are to occupy seats of honour in a convenient place, but these seats should clearly be distinguished from the bishop's seat and should in no way have the appearance of a bishop's cathedra: 46 therefore what the C aeremonial e Episcoporum says about several thrones within the sanctuary must now be considered abrogated. The bishop's vestments The mitre as a liturgical head-dress cannot have been in use before 1000 A. D.; any allusions to the use of a head-gear by Christian minis ters before this date are extremely rare and of very doubtful character. 47
46Instr. Ponti/icales ritus n, 10-13, AAS 70(196S)p. 40S-409. 47 The following are some instances which have been considered by some as allusions to a head-dress worn by bishops: i. Eusebius (His. Eccl. V, 24, 3)reproduces aletter sent by.Polycrates bishop of Ephesus, to Pope Victor on the question of the date of E aster; in this· letter Polycrates mentions the great bishops of Asia, among whom he lists the Apostle St. John: of him, Polycrates says: 'John too, who lay on the Lord's breast, who became a priest wearing the golden plate (o~ 8ysv~er] tspso~ 't'o ne 't'Cf.AOV nscpopsxws), a martyr and a teacher: he also sleeps atEphesus'. The ne't'Cf.A 0 V was worn by the Jewish high-priest on his forehe ad - in the context quoted above, it must mean either that John wore a golden plate in the same manner as the Jewish high-priest, which is improbable, or else it must have a figurative meaning, i.e. John's office in the Christian church was as important as that of the high priest among the Jews. ii. Eusebius (Hist. Ecc!. X,4,2) in the beginning of his panegyric on the consecration of the great church of Tyre, adressing himself to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, and the assembled clergy, begins his discourse, thus: 'Friends of God, priests clad in the holy tunic, wearing the heavenly crown of glory ('t'ov oOpav L ov 't'~~ OOt;Tj~ Cf.'t'scpCf.VOV), anointed with the unction of inspira tion, and adorned with the priestly vesture of the Holy Ghost •• .' The 'heavenly crown of glory' is very probably not the mitre - the rhetorical character of the whole discourse suggests that the words quoted must be taken in a figurative sense as referring to the spiritual characteristics of the new covenant in c'ontra distinction to the externals of the old one. iii. St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. X,4), addressing his father, the iishop of Nazianzus, says: 'You have anointed the chief high priest, clothed him with the tunic, put %pn his head the priest's cap ('t'ov XL OCf.p I.. V i.e. one of the 34 J. LUPI
The two most commonly found terms for ecclesiastical head-dress are mitra and infula. The Greek word IL ~1:pcx. is connected with IL ~1:o~,a thread, and meant either a girdle or a head-dress; as a head-dress it was a cap worn by women. 48 Totally· different in its origin ·is the infula, the fillet which decked the heads of heathen priests and sacrificial victims.49 In classical usage the word slowly drifted into meaning the ornaments and insignia of magistrates, or even the magistracy itself: in later ecclesiastical Latin we find it distinctively used for chasuble, apparently as being the principal official vestment. 50 The few references to infulae found in writers before the eleventh century can quite easily be shown not to refer to any liturgical head-dress at all. 51 words found in the LXX to indicate the priest's head-dress), brought him to the altar of the spiritual burnt-offering, sacrificed the calf of consecration, con secrated his hands with the Spirit, and brought him into the Holy of Holies'. Although the passage might possibly refer to some kind of head-dress, the highly figurative nature of the whole passage suggests that even the word x. ~ 5 cx.p ~ v should be taken in a figurative sense. (Cfr. Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v. Mitrf!, pp. 1214-1215). 48 Isidore of Seville (Etymol. XIX, 31, 4) says of it: 'est pileum Phrygium caput protegens quale est ornamentum capitis devotarum. Sed pileum virorum est, mitrae vero feminarum'. It was also worn by Asiatics without distinction of sex and seems to have been specially characteristic of the Phrygians (Cfr. Dic tionary of Christian Antiquities s.v. Mitre pag. 1213). The mitre first appears in Christian usage as the distinctive head-dress of the only person who had no particular function in the Liturgy, i.e. the deaconess. References to its use by deaconesses in Africa are found towards the end of fourth century (v.g. S. Optatus, Adversus Dona:tista~, Il, 19; VI, 4). We find men tion of a mitra religiosa in the installation rite of an abbess in the Mozarabic Liber Ordinum (ed. M. Ferotin, Monumenta Ecclesiae liturgica, V, Paris 1904). The mitre of the abbess of Huelva which troubled canonists of the fourteenth century was probably a survival of this old Spanish custom. One should perhaps also mention that a modern derivative of the same head-dres s is the 'Phrygian cap of Liberty' of the French revolution (Cfr. Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, London 1954). . 49 It is defined as 'fascia, in modum diadematis a quo vittae in utraque parte dependent,
53 The Pope's words are: 'Romana mitra caput vestrum insignivimus, qua et vos et successores vestri in ecclesiasticis officiis Romano more semper utamini' (Ep. 3; ML 143, 595). 54 Salmon, Etude, chp. Il, par. I, p.41. 55 Salmon. l.c. 56 Salmon (l.c.) mentions the frescoes on the church of San Clemente in Rome depicting the life of St. Alexis and the translation of the relics of St. Clement; two Exsultet rolls of the 11th century one at the Cathedral in Bari, and the other at the Cathedral, Capuaj miniatures in a sacramentary of the University library of Gottingen. Twelve century miniatures attesting the use of the mitre are much more numerous and it is virtually impossible to list them all. 57In the letter granting the privilege of the pallium and the mitre, (Ep. X, ML 146, 1287) Pope Alexander II says! 'Insuper mitras tibi a successoribus tuis ac canonicis excellentioribus, scilicet presbyteris et diaconis in missarum sollem nia min4straturis, subdiaconis in maiori ecc1esia tua et suprascriptis festivitati bus portandas concedimus'. 58 Salmon (l.c.) arrives at this conclusion from the existence ~f two forgeries PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 37 in 1051, granting the privilege of the mitre to the seven 'cardinals', namely the principal chaplains, of the cathedral of Besan<;on, when acting as celebrant, deacon or sub-deacon at Mass at the high altar on certain great feasts; in the next half century the privilege of the mitre was also granted to a number of Chapters, generally on the occasion of the grant of the mitre to their bishops, but sometimes even before. 59 The first grant of a mitre to an abbot was that given to abbot Elsin of the monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury by Pope Alexander III in 1063; six years later the mitre was granted to the abbot of Ecternach, then to the abbots of Montecassino and Cluny in 1088, to the abbot of St. Lawrence in Aversa in 1092, to the abbot of Nonantula in 1103; 'the mitre was granted to all the abbots of the Cassinese congregation by Paul IV (1559-1565);60 and finally in the seventeenth century the few remaining non-mitred abbots were granted the mitre ex officio. Although from the eleventh century the mi tre was granted not only to bishops but also to other ecclesiastics, within two centuries it became the inevitable part of the bishop's costume, so much so that, as we have said, bishops started using it without obtaining any papal grant, whilst abbots up till the seventeenth century, and conventual priors and other dignitaries continued obtaining the use of the mitre individually through a privileged grant from the Pope. 61 From the time it was first used by the Pope as his particular head dress to our times, the mitre has considerably changed its shape; in the twelfth century frescoes at San Clemente in Rome the pope wears a
trying to prove that the use of the mitre was granted to St. Ansgar by Pope Sergius II in 846 and to one of his successors by Pope Anastasius III between 911 and 913. The forgeries at least prove that at the time they were made, not all bishops used the mitre but it was a privilege granted to some bishops by the Pope and therefore not due to each single bishop on account of his episcopal character. 59 Gregory Dix (The Shape 01 the Liturgy, p. 406) says that the Bayeux Tapestry which very carefully portrays the pontificalia of the Archbishop of Canterbury Stigand, at King Harold's coronation, does not include the mitre, although it had already been granted to Abbot Elsin, of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, three years before in 1063. 6° Cfr. J. Nabuco, Ius Pontilicalium, Tournai, 1956, Lib. I, Tit. Il, cap. IVB, pag.82 note 2; and Salmon, Etudes sur I es insignes du Pontile Chap~ 2, § 11, pag.54. 61 Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p.406. iJiI 38 J. LUPI conical cap - the Phrygian cap - rising from a jewelled circlet.62 It was
62 We have here the first step towards the development of the Papal tiara: at the beginning of the eighth century the Pope used as head-dress known as the came lau.cum (see note 52); sixty years later the author of the false donation of Con stantine said that Pope St. S)'ivester refused the imperial crown which Constan tine wanted to give him, and so the Emperor placed on his head a 'frigium can dido nitore' - a white Phrygian cap - and granted him and his successors the right to wear it in processions 'ad imitatione imperii nostri'. The first mention of a papal head-dress in the Ordines Romani is in OrdoXXXYI, 55(Andrieu,Les Ordines Romani vol. IV, p.205) and it is called a regnum. In the Latin of the period regnum was a synonym of corona, i.e. the votive crowns offered to Roman sanctuaries by Popes and notable people: for example we read in the Liber Pontificalis that Leo III presented to the oratory of the Holy Cross in St. Peter's a 'regnum spanoclistum (~7tCl.V<'oX,A 8 'i:' (J'C'O V closed on the upper part) ex auro purissimo cum cruce in medio, pendentem super ipsum altare'. The regnum of Ordo XXXVI ~as conical in shape like a helmet: 'regnum,quod ad similitudinem cassidis ex albo fit indumento'. It must have been similar in shape to the frigium mentioned above. The whole context of Ordo XXXVI shows that the putting on the regnum was no liturgical act or a coronation ceremony: in fact the regnum is put on the pope's head by the 'prior stabuli' i.e. the person taking care of the pope's horse! But by the twelfth century there is a change and now the frigium or regnum is considered a crown, and documents speak of a papal coronation. The first Pope spoken of as 'crowned' is Gregory VII, who on Christmas Day in 1075, after having celebrated Mass at St. Mary Major, returned to the Lateran, 'ad palatium coronatus et cum omni laude episcoporum atque cardinalium et procerorum'. The Ordines of this time list the festivities, up to eighteen in number, when the Pope rode 'coronatus' through Rome. Twelfth century monuments often show the pope with a high stiff bonnet, coni cal in shape, white, and often interlaced with white and yellow (gold) fillets: the bonnet rose from what seems to be a circlet of gold, adorned with precious stones. This bonnet Pope Innocent HI calls an aurifrisium (see note 65 below). Up till the eleventh century and even up to the middle of the twelfth no dis tinction was made between the head-dress -the Pope used during liturgical cele brations and when riding through Rome: originally it must have been the same head-dress (the camelaucum or frigium or regnum) which the Pope used when travelling and which later on he kept on after entering th-e church and starting the liturgical rites. But by this time- the Pope had started granting the use of his head-dress to various bishops: the privilege was for the use of this head dress (now also called a mitra) 'more Romano in ecclesiasticis officiis'. And therefore it was natural that documents towards the end of the twelfth century began distinguishing between the mitra and the regnum the former bein..g reserved for use "'during liturgical services, the latter during the ride through Rome from the Lateran to the stational Church for the liturgical celebration. From now on the mitre and the regnum had a different devela:pment: the mitre PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: TIIEIR ORIGIN AND USE 39 this head-dress which was first granted to Eberhard of Trier to use according to Roman custom during the liturgyj63 it was made of linen64 but a century later, at least for the bishop of Rome, it was made partly of gold cloth.65 The shape also had changed: instead of being conical, it took a curved shape and grew into a round cap. Soon a depression ap peared in the upper part of this cap, and an ornamental band passed from back to front across the depression, thus making more prominent the puffs in the upper end of the cap to the right and left sides of the headj soon obtained more or less its present form, while the regrrum slowly deve loped into the tiara. (Cfr. Andrieu, Les Ordine Romani, vo!. IV. pp. 168-184). Up till the time of Boniface VIII the tiara had only one crown; the second was added towards the thirteenth century. There is nevertheless a libellous publication by Benzo bishop of Alba dedicated to the emperor Henry IV in which it is stated that through the instigation of Hilde brand, Pope N icholas II was crowned in 1069 in a Roman synod with a tiara having two croWnS: 'legebatur autem in inferiori circulo 'corona regni de manu Dei', in altero vero sic: 'dia dema imperii de manu Petri'. Many have considered this statement as a malev olent frabrication, but it seems improbable that Benzo was referring to some thing which developed two centuries later; probably Benzo is referring to an imperial crown, and therefore his statement has no reference to the development of the tiara (Andrieu, l,c. pag.176). The third crown was added to the papal tiara by one of the Avignon popes. Innocent III in his sermon on Pope St.Sylvester (ML 217, 481-482) says: 'Romanus itaque pontifex in'signum imperii utitur regno et ln signum pontificii utitur mitra. Sic mitra semper utitur et ubique; regnum vero nec ubique nec s em per, quia pontificalis auctoritas et prior est et dignior et diffusior quam imperia lis'. Nevertheless the bishops of Benevento up till the end of the sixteenth century insisted on their right of using a tiara similar to that of the Pope, even though Pope Paul Il (+ 1471) had objected to this right (Andtieu, l.c. pag. 183 n.l). 63See note 53. 64Honorius of Autun (Gemma animae, L. 214; ML 172,609) in the twelfth century still seems to speak of a head-dtess made of linen - 'mitra ex bysso facta' - (Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v. Mitra, pag. 1216). 65 The mitre at the time of Pope Innocent III (+ 1216) seems to have been made partly of gold (Dictionary of Christian antiquities, I.c.): in fact he calls it auri/risium and considers it to be the equivalent of the imperial crown: 'pro diademate regio utitur aurifrisio circulare', he says of Pope St. Sylvester in a sermon on his feast day (Sermo VII in festo D. Silvestri ML 217,481). The gold cloth or the gold embroidery seems to have been limited to the circlet from which rose a white conical cap, often plaited with intertwined white and ye.l.low (or golden) fillets: at least this is what various monuments trom the 12th century onwards seem to,)ndicate (Andtieu, Les Drdines Romani, vol. IV, pag. 175). 40 J. LUPI these puffs soon developed into horns and this brought about a change in the manner of placing the mitre on the head; the horns no longer rose above the temples but above the forehead and the back of the head. By 1150 the mitre had obtained more or less its present shape, although two further changes developed later on: from the fifteenth century the sides of the mitre were no longer vertical but diagonal, and from the sixteenth century it was customary to curve more or less decidedly the diagonal sides of the horns; at the time the height of the mitre was gradually increased until, in the seventeenth century, it towered over the head of the bishop.66 As early as the thirteenth century we find two types of mitres used, the simple mitre made of white linen, and the mitra aurifrisiata of silk and silk embroidery; a third type was soon to develop, the pretiosa, which was adorned with rich bands, pearls, precious stones, small orna mental discs of pretious metal and even painting.67 The Caeremoniale Episcoporum gives detailed rules for the use of these three types of mitre, but the new rules have really simplified matters: only one type of mitre is to be used during a liturgical celebra tion, an ornamented mitre for feasts and a simple mitre for penitential days.68 Lappets (infulae), it seems, were not originally added to the back of
66 Cfr. G. Braun, I paramenti sacri,loro uso, storia e simbolismo, Italian edition, Turin 19IA, chp. V, § 3, pag.152-153. 67Mitrae ••• triplex est species: una, quae pretiosa dicitur,. quia gemmis et lapidibus pretiosis, vel laminis aureis, vel argente.is contexta esse solet; altera auriphrygiata sine gemmis, et sine laminis aureis, vel argenteis; sed vel aliqui bus parvis margaritis composita, vel ex serico albo, auro intermisto, vel ex tela aurea simplici sine laminis, et margaritis; tertia, quae simplex vocatur, sine auro, ex simplici serico Damasceno, vel alio, aut etiam linea ex tela alba con fecta, rubeis lacinlis, seu frangiis, et vittis, pendentibus' (Caer. Episcop. Lib. I, cap.XVII, n.1). The simple mitre' used by the Pope is of silver thread: probably such a mitre dates from the seventeenth century as previously the popes used a simple mitre of linen and later of silk cloth: most probably the use of the silver mitre was introduced to distinguish the pope from the bishop~ and the cardinals during a cappella papale, the pope using a silver mitre, cardirrals a silk one and bishops a linen one (tfr. Nabuco, Ius Pontificalium, Lib. n, pars. II tit. I. p. 175, n.9). 68 In unlquaque actione liturgica,. una tantum mitra Episcopus utatur, quae iuxta rationem celebrationis erit aut simplex aut ornata' (PoritificaZ-es rhus, Ill, 18, AAS 70 (1968) p.416). PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 41 the mitre, but they may have developed from the ear-flaps of the came laucum, which together with the Phrygian cap, seems to have been the predecessor of the mitre; nevertheless, whatever their origin, even the infulae were subjected to very costly ornamentation. The mitre is the only liturgical vestment of purely papal origin, and the right to use it, whether by bishops, priests or deacons, and even lay men 69 depended originally on papal privilege, even more strictly than did the use of the pallium. The pallium70 originally was simply a 'scarf of office', worn by the em peror and the consuls, and granted to numerous other officials in the
69Nicholas II granted the use of the mitre, between 1059 and 1061, to the first king of Bohemia; this privilege was later on confirmed by popes Alexander 11 and Gregory VII. Pope Lucitis I granted to King Roger l, the Norman king of Sicily, not only the use of the mitre but also that of the dalmatic, the sandals, the ring and the crozier; Innocent III in 1298 put the mitre on the head of Peter II king of Aragon and vest.ed him with the dalmatic. The rite for the coronation of the emperor in the 13th century pontificals includes the imposition of the mitre before the crowning itself (Cfr. Salmon, Etude"sur les insignes du Pontife, clfp.2 § 3, p.64-65). 70 The word pallium has a variety of uses in ecclesiastical Latin: St. Isidore defines the pallium as 'id quo ministrantium scapulae conteguntur, ut dum minis trant expediti discurrant' quoting Plautus; he derives the word pallium from pellis: 'Dictum autem pallium a pellibus, quia prius super indumenta pellicia veteies utebantus, quasi pellea sive a palla per derivation em' (Etymol. XIX, 24,1). Isidore in the same chapter uses the word as a general term for garment and so he speaks of the pallium purum fomia rotunda (§ 3), i.e. the toga, the insigne pallium or the pallium bellicum (§ 9) i.e. the paludamentum, the pallium cum fimbris longi,s (§ 14) i.e. the paenula, the pallium fimbriatum (§ 14) i.e. the lacema, and the pallium puerile (§ 16) for the toga praetexta. The pallium also indicated the coarse outer garment of monks and of others who tried to imitate their austerities: of such persons pope Celestine 1(+ 432) speaks as 'amicti pallio' (Ep. IV ad epise. Vien. et Narb., ML. 50, 432). When Fulgentius of Ruspe became bishop, his biographer (Vita c.37; ML 65, 136) says of him that 'subtus casulam nigello vel lactineo pallio circumdatus incessit. Quando tempus aeris invitabat, solo pallio intra monasterium est coopertus. Scapulis vera nudis numquam a nobis visus est'. Some explain the passage as meaning that Fulgentius did not put aside his monastic garb when he became bishop, but continued to wear it under his casu la; others hold that th& pallium mentioned here is a wide scarf covering the neck and shoulders and worn under the tunic: S. G fourth. century. 71 Since the fifth century the Pope used a sort of •scarf' known as a pallium, very similar to the pallia depicted on consular diptychs; up till the sixth century the Pope generally requested the em peror's permission to grant the pallium,72 and the fact is mentioned that collum usque ad pectus venit, rationale vocabatur in veteri testamento •• .' The pallium of Fulgentius of Ruspe could therefore have been what in the Middle Ages developed into the Rationale or Superhumerale, which then was very com monly used especially by bishops of Northern Europe, but which now is used by the Bishop of Eischstart in Germany Ca privilege confirmed in 1745 by Benedict XV), by the Prince-Archbishop of Cracow in Poland Ca right derived from ancient custom), by the bishop of Nancy and Toul in France (a privilege granted by Pius IX in 1865), by the Archbishop of Paderborn in Germany Ca privilege granted in 1666 by Alexander VII) and by the Patriarch of Lisbon (a privilege granted in 1724 by Benedict XIII). Its origin is uncert-ain but it might have been due to a wish to imitate the ephod of the Jewish high prie st and at the same time to serve as a substitute for the pallium for bishops who had no right to it. (Cfr. Nabuco, p.190 n. 37: Righetti, Storia Liturgica, vol. I, Milano 1950, p. 530-531). The pallium could have derived from philosophers' mantle, as the manner of putting it on was the same as putting on a mantle. John the Deacon in his life of St. Gregory (Iv, 84) describes the manner in which Gregory put on his pallium thus: 'Pallio mediocri a dextro videlicet humero sub pectore per stomachum circulatim deducto, deinde sursum per sinistrum humerum post tergum deposito, cuius pars alter.a super eundem humerum propria rectitudine, non per medium corporis sed ex latere pendet'. At the time of this description the pallium already had the form of a scarf'. 71 According to Dix (The Shape of the Liturgy, pag.401) the pallium and the stole derive from the • scarf of office'. It was adopted by the clergy in different forms almost everywhere except at Rome during the latter part of the fourth century. In the East, used by all bishops from the fifth century onwards, it deVeloped into the omophorion; in the West, worn by bishops, priests and dea cons, in different ways, as a badge of office, it developed into the stole; worn by the Pope. and later on also by archbishops and certain priVileged bishops through papal concession, it developed into the pallium. There are also instances of the use of a pallium by Gallican bishops towards the end of the fourth century, but see note 74 below. 72 The Liber Pontificalis says that Pope St. Mark (+ 336) granted the pallium to the bishop of Ostia: 'hie constituit uti episcopus Ostiae, qui consecrat episco pus, palleum uter.etur, et ab eodem eprscopus urbis Romae consecraretur'. The authority of the Liber Pontificalis is very doubtful in this case and so we must consider as the earliest instance of the bestowal of the pallium the occasion when Pdt>e Symmachus (+ 514) granted the pallium to Theodore archbishop and metropolitan of Laureacus in Pannonia (Ep. 12; ML 62, 72): in this case there is no mention of any imperial authority. On the other hand 'lie have a letter PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 43 the bishop of Ravenna, Maurus, petitioned for the use of the pallium to the emperor himself.73 During this period we find the pallium in use also in Gaul, Spain and Africa. In Gaul, at least it seems to have been simply a mark of archiepiscopal rank, which was to be specially worn at Mass. 74 After the sixth century the pallium took on a new meaning in ecclesiasti cal circles and was considered a relic, a sort of replica of St. Peter's mantle,75 and its petition and acceptance implied the acknowledgement written by Pope Vigilius in 543 A.D. to Auxonius, archbishop of Arles, inform ing him that he was defering the grant of the pallium. as. he had not yet" ascer tained what was the pleasure of the emperor: the grant took place two years later when the imperial sanction had been given - 'pro gloriosissimi filii nostri regis Childeberti Christiani devotione mandatis' (Ep. 6, 7; ML 79, 26). Pope Symma chus also granted the pallium to Caesarius of Arles: Pope Symmachus, we read in the life of St. Caesarius (4, 20: ML 67, 1016) 'tanta meritorum eius dignitate permotus, non solum verissime cum metropolitanae honore suspexit sed et con cesso specialiter pallii decoravit privilegio:' again here we have no mention of any imperial authority. Gregory the Great granted the pallium to John of Palermo, John of Syracuse, Donus of Messina, Constance of Milan, Leander of Seville, Maximus of Salon a in Dalmatia, Siger of Autun, Virgilius of Aries and others: in the case of the bishop of Autun Gregory ascertained the imperial pleasure, but not in the case of Leander of Seville and of Augustine of Canterbury. (Dic tionary of Christian Antiquities, s.v. Pallium, pag.1548). 73 This step was henceforward considered as an equivalent to a revolt against Papal Supremacy (Duchesne, Christian Worship, pog.385); though the fact that the emperor claimed the right to confer the pallium remains. 74It seems that one must distinguish between the pallium Romanum and the pallium Gallicanum: the bishops of Spain and Gaul had, apart from the Roman pallium which had been granted to some of them from the sixth century onwards, another pallium which they used as a sign of office and which seems to have had the same shape as the Roman pallium; even the bishops of Africa wore the pallium as a sign of office. This seems to be confirmed by a canon of the Council of Ma90n (581) which forbade bishops to celebrate Mass without a pallium: 'ut episcopus sine pallio missas dicere non vrnesumat' (Corpus Christia norum, Turnhoult, 1963, 148A, 224). 75 St. Peter was supposed to have slept for one night under a mantle which thus became his own: strips were cut from this mantle and bestowed on bishops; when the se strips were all used others were made similar to them, and so the pallium came to be regarded as a relic of St. Peter, a sort of replica of his mantle: so before being dispatched to their destination, pallia are deposited for a whole night in the sanctuary of the confessio, immediately above the tomb of the Apostle. By a very slight extension of ideas the pallium came to connote a kind of transmission of power, like that symbolised by the mantle 01 Elias, which passed on to his successor Eliseus. The pallium thus became the natural 44 J. LUPI of the supremacy of the Apostolic See.76 The gloves (Chirotecae) seem to have originated in Northern Europe -in the strict sense of the word they were unknown to the ancient Greeks and :!lomans, but not to the Persians.77 The first mention of gloves among the liturgical vestments is in an inventory of 831 of the Abbey of St. Riquier.7s When first used as liturgical vestments, gloves were white in colour, but from the twelfth century onwards gloves of different colours were used, and, finally, their colour had to match that of the other liturgical vestments. With the present reform the bishop may not use the chirote cae, but if he decides to use them, he may always use gloves of a white colour. The buskins and sandals (caligae et sandalia) The buskins (caligae) were a kind of stockings, made of various material, serving for defence against the cold, and worn by soldiers and by monks if exposed to cold, or if infirm; 79 they were also used by bishops in outdoor dress in cold climates.so The earliest writer to men- sign of a superior jurisdiction, of a species of participation in the Pasce oves meas of St. Peter. (Duchesne, p. 385-386). This symbolism more or less corres ponds to the symbolism attributed to the omophorion by Isidore of Pelusium (Epist. 1,136: MG 77, 272), in the fifth century: the woollen material with which the omophorion is made suggests the lost sheep borne on the shoulders of the Good Shepherd; when the Gospel book is opened, Isidore continues, the bishop puts aside his omophorion as now the chief Shepherd himself is present. 76 St. Boniface in 745 A.D. writing to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury declares his fidelity to the Pope and adds that 'metropolitanos pallia ab ilia sede quarere' (Ep.63; ML 89, 763). 77Xenophon, Cyropoedia, viii, 8.17 •••• &./../..CI. XCl.~ 7t8p~ &XpCl.~(; 't"Cl.L(; ~8P(H X8~p~-5 CI.(; 5'Cl.cr8~Cl.C;; XCl.~ 5 Cl.x't"UA.1')epCl.(;~ , 118xoua~v.' 8 Salmon, Etude.s sur les insignes du pontile, chp.2, § 1, p.36. 79 Cfr. v.g. John Cassian, Instituta coenobiorum (I, 9): 'Calciamenta vero ve lut interdicta evangelico praecepto recusantes, cum infirmitas corporis vel matutinus hiemis rigor seu meridiani aestus fervor exegerit, tantummodo gallicis suos muniunt pedes •. .' so Cfr. v.g. Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum (VI, 31): •••• lassatis socio rum equi,s, solus pertendit episcopus, tanto timore perterritus, ut unam caligam de pede elapsam colligere non curaret: et sic usque ad civitatem veniens, se intra murorum Rhemensium septa conc1usit'. PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 47 tion buskins among the sacred vestments of bishops and cardinals is Ivo Carnotensis (+ 1115).81 The sandals were originally secular ornaments worn outside the church as well as during liturgical celebrations. From the earliest years of the Roman republic, consuls and triumphing generals were distinguished by high-laced shoes of a particular form and a bright red colour, while pa tricians were distinguished from the plebeians by 'a particular form of black shoe. In the fourth century A.D., when all dress was formalised and regulated, the wearing of different forms of shoes by different ranks of officials was a matter for imperial edicts. The purple boots of the Byzantine emperors, like the purple chasuble embroidered with golden bees, was the most jealously guarded symbol of imperial power and if one used them he was considered as claiming the imperial throne. In adopting the campagi or sandals ecclesiastics were only following the customary policy of celebrating the Liturgy in the normal dress of important laymen of the time. Fourth and fifth century mosaics clearly show that the campag,i were used by clerics an,d laymen;82 a century later they are already a distinc tive sign of episcopal office and were in use also outside Rome in Gaul, Spain and Britain.83 Sandals, together with the dalmatic, were the first pontifical vestments, whose use was granted by the Pope to ecclesiastics who were not bishops: in fact Gregory the GreatH forbids the Catania deacons the use of the campagi, as his predeces sors had given the honour of the campagi only to the Messina deacons. 81'Antequam induuntur sandaliis vestiantur caligis byssinis vel lineis, usque ad genua protensis et ibi bene constrictis' (Sermo de significationibus indumen torum sacerdotalium apud Hittorp De divinis officiis, quoted from Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s. v. Caligae; p. 258). 82 Salmon, Etude ••• p. 23 mentions the following instances: the mosaic s of the chapel of Saints Victor and Satyrus in Sant' Ambrogio at Milan (end of the fourth century); the mosaics of the basilica of Se. Cosmas and Damian at Rome, from the time of Pope Felix II (+ 530); the mosaics of San Vitale in Ravenna (middle of the sixth century); th~, (Ilqsfl,ic~ of , the basilic\,- of San Lorenzo fuori le mura at Rome (end of the sixth century); the mosaics of the bas ilica of St. Agnes also at Rome (beginning of the seventh century); those of the oratory of St. Venantius in the LateranBaptistry (eighth century).The sixth century mosaics of San Vitale and San Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna show that the bishop and his deacons and the emperor and his dignitaries used the same type of sandals. 83 Salmon, Etude, chp. Il, p. 35. 84 E pi st. VIII, 27'11 11L 77. 928 Cfr. note n.24. 46 J. LUPI According to the instruction Pontificales ritus bishops today are at liberty to use or not use buskins and sandals at a pontifical Mass. Tunic and dalmatic Since the second century the old Roman toga virilis had fallen into disu:se as an everyday garment and was no longer worn at ordinary meet ings of the Roman Senate: the upper classes had adopted a new style of dress for everyday use, a linen robe with close sleeves covering the body from neck to feet, the linea; over the linea a sort of tunic with short close sleeves and extending to the knees was worn, this was the tunica or colobion.85 On formal occasions and out of doors, men and women wore the paenula86 over the tunic. These three items of dress are mentioned 85Cfr.Dictionary of Christian Antiquities s.v. Tunica p.1998 and s.v. Colobium where it is described as a tunic with very short sleeves only, and fitted closely about the arm. 86 T he paenula was a warm, heavy outer garment, for travelling or cold weather: it covered the whole person, having ol)ly a hole for the head to pass through, and thus did not require sleeves but fell overthe arms and enveloped the whole person of the bearer. Originally it was not worn by persons in the higher ranks of life, but in the second century of the Christian era it was adopted by all classes of society. (Dictionary of Christian Antiquities s.v. paenula p.1533). The paenula resembled in shape, though it was not quite identical with the casula, the lacema and the planeta. According to Isidore (De orig. xix, 21) the casula is a garment furnished with a hood - vestis cucullata - and is the diminutive of casa as like a small cottage or hut it covers the entire person. In all probability the term casula was a popular term in the provinces to indicate the paenula. The planeta on the other hand was a more costly dress than the more common casula, and for this reason its use was prohibited by Cassian for his monks: ••• pjaneticarum atque byrrorum pretia simul ambitionemque decli nant' (Inst. I, 6). That there was a distinction between the casula and the planeta seems to be implied by ORDO XXXVI (composed in the second half of the ninth century), which says that at the consecration of a bishop in Rome, after the Gospel, the bishop elect has his casula taken off by deacons and then the pope vests him with the planeta. The d~stinction seems to be confirmed by the Romano-German Pontifical and by the Roman Pontifical of the 12th century, which distinguish between the casula of the assistant bishops and the planeta of the bishop-elect; but one must take into account the fact that in the tenth century in Spain and Gaul the term casula was used to indicate the Roman planeta: in fact ORDO X, which faithfully uses Frankish terminology, speaks of the casula worn" by some of the j'Mtres who gather in the sanctuary for the bishop's Mass on festive days (n. 27), of the casula which the acholytes wear (n. 3), and of the bishop's casu la (n.41) - in the last two instances the reference is certain~ to the Roman PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 45 in the Acta martyrii of St. Cyprian:81 the saint is wearing them simply as the ordinary outdoor dress of a gentleman of the day, but they are in essentials the pontificaJs of a medieval bishop. We have already said that by the end of the fourth century fashion had changed in favour of a more military style of dress, introduced by the barbarian mercenaries, but by a law of A.D. 397 senators were obliged to resume the old civilian style of the paenuZa over the coZobion or tunic and the ungirdled linea,88 while civil servants were ordered to wear the paenuZa over the girdled linea as part of their full dress uniform. Two centuries later, in a contemporary mosaic portrait, Pope Gregory the Great together with his father, the senator Gordianus, and his mother, are depicted as wearing the paenula over the tunic and the ungirdled linea: the only distinguishing item in their dres s is a sort of linen tur ban for Gregory's mother and the pallium for Gregory - otherwise the dress of a bishop, a distinguished layman, and his wife, were exactly the same. The dalmatic was developed from the tunica and colobion: the two words, dalmatic and colobion, are often used synonymously, 89 but it planeta. We can therefore conclude with all probability that for the compiler of the Romane-German pontifical, the two terms, casula and planeta, were synonyms. This can be confirmed by the Pontifical of Durand of Mende, which depends on the two pontificals just mentioned. In Durand's pontifical the terms are inter-changed, and it is the bishop-elect who is vested with the casula, while the assistant bishops use the plan eta. But originally the casula and the planeta were distinct vestments, the planeta developing into our chasuble and the casula into our cope. Casula does not belong to the vocabulary in use in Rome at least to designate the chasuble _ at Rome it indicated the vestment given to newly baptised infants after their Baptism (Ordo XI - Rome 6th-7th century), while in Gaul it originally designated the amphibalus - 'casula quam amphibalum vocant quod sacerdos induitur' we read in the seventh century pseude-Germanus of Paris (ep. 2, ML 72, 97 A) - this was a sort of woollen mantle which could have a hood - this agrees with Isidore's definition of casuia, which is certainly not the Roman pianeta. (Cfr. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani, IV, p.149-15l). 81, se lacema byrro expoliavit ••• et cum se dalmatica expoliasset et diaconibus tradidisset in linea stetit' (Acta proconsularia S. Cypriani, 5). s8 Cod. Theod. lib. xiv, tit. 10, 1.1. 89 The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities(s. v. Dalmatic p. 523) quotes Epiphan- ius (Haer. XV): llcx."'IkU't"~Xcx.~} 8~'t"OUV xo"'o~~wvcx.~} &x 7t"'cx.'t"u~ IkWV 5~cx. 7tOp~upcx.~ ctAOUPYOU~B~~ xcx.'t"8ax8ucx.aIk8vcx.~. kd an edict of Diocletian fixing the maximum pri!=e of articles throughout the Empire, in which edict the two words colObion and daimaJ.i,c are used as equivalents. 48 J. LUPI seems that later on the colobion or tunica indicated a tunic with short close sleeves or a sleeveless tunic, whilst the dalmatic was a tunic with large sleeves, which came to be worn in public without the chasuble.90 In the fourth century the dalmatic had become a sort of undress uni form for high officials, and as such it began to be worn by important bishops, though always under the chasuble. It was adopted by itself as the normal dress for the seven regional deacons of the church of Rome, whose duties were becoming administrative and financial rather than religious as they were the superintendents of the poor relief system of the city and administrators of the estates which formed its endownment.91 For this reason, perhaps, the dalmatic, up till the middle of the ninth century, seems to have been associated in a special way with the local church of Rome, and therefore it could be worn only if permission had been granted by the Pope.92 90 Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, chp. 12, p.402 says this happened in the second century, but adds that the emperor Commodus was accused of breach of decorum when he appeared at the circus clad only in a dalmatic without the chasuble. It is not quite clear what this breach of decorum was: if the dalmatic at this time was still a short sleeved tunic, then it would be obvious unseemliness in a person of rank to be seen abroad thus clad. Others, taking the dalmatic to be already a long-sleeved dress, saw the unseemlines s in the implied effeminacy of the wearer as Aulus Gellius remarks: 'tunicis uti virum prolixis ultra brachia, et usque in primores manus ac prope in digitos Romae utque omni in Latio indecorum fuit' (vii, 12). Others finally saw the unseemliness in the foreign nature of the garb (Cfr. Dictionary of Christian Antiquities s. v. Daimatic, p.S24 note). 91Dix, l.c. 92The dalmatic (described by Isidore, Etymol. xix,22, as: 'dalmatica vestis primum in Dalmatia. provincia Graeciae texta est, tunica sacerdotalis candida cum clavis ex purpura') was the prerogative of the Pope and his seven deacons: in fact when Pope Symmachus (+ 514) granted to St. Cae sarius bi shop of Arle s the pallium he granted the dalmatic to his deacons and the biographer of St.. Caesarius remarks that this was an outstanding favour as the Arles deacons had received an honour which put them on par with the Roman deacons: 'diaconos ad Romanae instar ecclesiae dalmaticarum fecit habitu praeminere' (S. Caesarii vita, n.42). When Gregory the Great granted to the bishop of Gap (Vapineum), Aregius, and to his archdeacon the sought - for privilege of the dalmatic,the Pope sent him two ready-made dalmatics as if he wanted him to have authentic models of a vestment unknown in Gaul (IX, epist. 219). Two centuries later, in 757, Fulrad, abbot of St. Denis, had to obtain authorisa tion frSm Pope Stephen lI, so that his abbey could have six deacons using the dalmatic in the liturgical services. In the tenth century Ordo XXXV distinguishes between the diaconi cardinales and the diaconi /orenses: the diaconi cardinale.s were the seven regional deacons PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: THEIR ORIGIN AND USE 49 The use of both tunic and dalmatic under the chasuble is first men- of Rome and used the dalmatic, while the diaconi jorenses did not receive it at their ordination: 'In forensibus autem nec dalmatica induitur (diaconus), nisi tantum benedictione percepta pergit via sua ••• Ut autem venerint ad communi candum si cardonalis fuerit ••• diaconus, ascendunt ad sedem eucharistiam de manu pontificis acipiendum et communicant super altare iuxta morem. F orense s vero ••• diaconi nec ad sedem accedunt ad communionem percipiendum, nec super altare communicant. Et quomodo potest fieri ut super illud altare commu nicent, ubi licentiam non habent ministrare (Ordo XXXV, 34-36). Doubtlessly with the diffusion of Roman use s outside Italy the dalmatic was adopted as the deacon's vestment, without any thought of obtaining an author isation from Rome. Nevertheless official liturgical books even later than the tenth century do not allude at all to the dalmatic as the deacon's vestment. Briefly in the Roman tradition the dalmatic was the liturgical vestment for deacons, while in the Gallican tradition it was the stole. The two traditions first met in the beginning of the ninth century, and became fully integrated three centuries later: in fact from this century onwards in miniatures, mosaics, etc. deacons appear vested in stole and dalmatic. We have already referred above to how the dalmatic came to be used in Gallican lands; we will see now how the stole passed into the Roman tradition. The stole (which was the name given to the oranum in Frankish lands) was already in use in the fourth century, under its ancient name of orarium: canons 22 and 23 of the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia (v. 380) forbade minor orders to use the orarium; the second council of Braga in 563 ordered deacons to put the orarium over their shoulders, visibly, and not under their tunic, to distinguish themselves from subdeacons:'item placuit ut quia in aliquantis huius provinciae ecclesiis diaconos absconsis infra tunicam utuntur orariis, ita ut nihil differri subdiacono videantur, de cetero superposito scapulae, sicut decet,utanturorario'. rio. This was the manner of putting on the orarium in the Eastern Churches and in southern Italy. The orarium was used by deacons, priests and bishops, but the deacon put it on in a different way from a priest and a bishop. The deacon w.ore the orarium on the left shoulder only and it had to be plain and not orna mented with colours or gold: 'unum igitur orarium oporcet levitam gestare in sinistro humero, propter quod orat, id est praedicat, dexteram autem partem habere liberam, ut expeditus ad ministerium sacerdotale discurrat; caveant igitur amodo levitae gemino uti orario, sed uno tantum et puro nec ullis colori bus aut auro ornato' (can. 40 of the 4th council of Toledo in 633). A priest wore the orarium in such a way that it passed round the neck and over both shoulders to form a cross over his breast: 'cum sacerdos ad solemnia missarum accedit ••• non aliter accedat quam orario utroque humero circumseptus ••• ita ut de uno eodemque orario cervicem pariter et utrumque humerum premens, signum in suo pectore praeferat crucis' (can. 3 of the Council of Braga in 675). The orarium which is referred to in the texts quoted is the same liturgical vestment which was known as a stole in Frankish lands. From the seventh century onwards documents speak of the orarium being given to the deaoon at his ordination, v.g. can. 28 of the 4th Council of Toledo 50 J. LUPI doned in the Ordo Romanus I;93 the two vestments were of different colours, the tunic blue and the dalmatic red - at least this was so in the twelfth century. Later on the two vestments became indistinguish able, although bishops put both vestments on, as, according to Durandus, the bishop when pontificating should use the vestments of all the Holy Orders.94 orders that a rehabilitated deacon should receive back the orarium - this im plies that the orarium had been given to the deacon on his ordination as 'ea in reparationem sui recipiant quae cum ordinarentur perceperant'. The rite of the imposition of the orarium at the deacon's ordination passed from Spain into Gaul in the ninth century and by the eleventh century was in common use everywhere in the West except in Rome. The first mention of the stole or orarium in Rome is in the twelfth century, with the introduction in Rome of the franco-german liturgical books. The stole and the orarium are mentioned in some Roman Ordines of an earlier century, but in a different meaning, v.g. Ordo XI, n.99 calls a stola the white vestment which the newly baptised put on after their Baptism, and Ordo XXXIV twice mentions the orarium, once when speaking of the cleric who is to receive minor orders - 'induunt clericum illum planetam et orarium' - and secondly when speaking of the subdeacon who is being promoted to the diacon ate - 'indutus tunicam albam et tenens orarium in manu'; in Rome the oranum was a sort of linen handcherchief or scarf which was also known as a sudanum: evidently here the orarium is our maniple, or better still, in Rome, at this time the term orarium was a generic term indicating any type of lengthened scarf. The Hispano-Gallican-Oriental tradition (the oranum or stola) and the Roman tradition (the dalmatic) first came together in a Frankish country towards the year 800 as witnessed by Ordo XXXVII A, n. 9: 'si enim diaconi ordinandi sunt, orados et dalmaticas (revestit eos archidiaconus)'. A century later the author of the Romano-German Pontifical at Mayence does the same thing: the impe sition of the stole is -followed by the vesting with the dalmatic - this pontifical introduced in Rome was instrumental in introducing the rite of the imposition of the stole and the dalmatic at a deacon's ordination in the Roman Pontifical. Actually the stole was already used in Rome by the deacons, although it was not yet given to the deacon at his ordination: Amalarius in his De ecclesiasti cis ol/iciis(in fine praef. 3rd ed.) says that 'quando versus de Alleluia canitur, exuit se planeta diaconus stolamque post tergum ducit subtus dextram alam una cum planeta' (Cfr. Andrieu, Ordines Romani, IV, pp. 129-138). 93 n. 34: Et tunc ceted subdiaconi regionarii secundum ordinem suum accipiunt ad induendum pantificem ipsa vestimenta, alius lineam, alius cingulum, alius a nagolaium (id est amictum), alius lineam dalmaticam alius maiorem dalmaticam et alius planetam'. Amalarius in his De ecclesiasticis officiis (II, e.22) con firms this: 'Summus pontifex octo habet vestimenta: amictus, camisia, cingUlum stola, duae runicae, casula pallium'. 9~Sica'i:d, bishop of Cremona (+ 1215) in his Mitrale (II, e. 8) says: ministri induunt episcopo tunicam hy-acinthinam et superinduunt dalmaticam'; and Durandus in his Rationale (IIl, In. 3) writes: 'Episcopus induit tunicam hYlicinthinam, id est, PONTIFICAL INSIGNIA: WEIR ORIGIN AND USE 51 The new rules suppress the tunic and only the dalmatic is to be used at a Pontifical Mass or even at a low Mass during which a pontifical rite v.g. an ordination is performed. The new rule has its parallel in a Milanese custom of the twelfth century: at that time the bishop in Milan used only the dalmatic. 95 The gremial veil is first mentioned towards the end of the thirteenth century in the Pontifical of Durandus, who describes it as a tobalea pulchra: the bishop wore it over his lap when sitting on the thron~, and when the deacon helped the bishop to stand he took the gremial with his hands, and when the bishop went from the throne to .the altar or from the altar to the throne the gremial veil was held in front of him by the deacon and his chaplain. This shows that the gremial, in Durandus' time was a sign of honour and not just a means of keeping the chasuble unsoiled. And since Durandus describes it as a tobalea pulchra it must have al ready been an ornate piece of cloth. In Rome the gremial veil is first mentioned in the Ordo of Giacomo da Gaeta (1311) and it is still called a tobalea pulchra; it is only in the inventories of the fifteenth century that it is called a gremiale. In the fourteenth century the gremial veil was not considered to be a pontifical vestment; in fact it ·was also used by priests - a Dominican missal of the fourteenth century and the statutes of 1339 of Grandisson, bishop of Exeter attest this.96 The gremial used at a Pontifical Mass was made of silk, decorated by a cross in the centre and trimmed with silk embroidery; its colour corresponded to that of the chasuble. In the baroque period the veil was richly decorated with gold, silver and silk embroidery. Besides this gremial veil, another gremial veil, made of linen without any decorations or embroidery, is used by bishops during the distribution of candles, palms and ashes and during the anointings in ordinations. The new rules abolish the silk gremial veil, but maintain the linen veil when its use is required. J. LUPI (to be concluded) caelestem conversationem' (efr. Nabuco, Ius Ponti/icalium, Lib. Il, pars.Il, tit. r, pag. 183 nota 23). 95 The fact is mentioned by N abuco I.e •. 96 G. Braun, I Pa.::,amenti Sacri, loro uso, storia e simbolismo, Torino 1914 parte IV, § 3, p.208. THE PENITENTIAL ACT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MASS IN THE 'ORDINES ROMANI' IN dealing on the prayers at the foot of the altar, Righetti distinguishes three groups of prayers or apologies, namely, the antiphon and psalm 42, which form the first group; the reciprocal confession between the celebrant and the ministers, accompanied by the general absolution, which form the second group; and the third group of apologies formed of the ·preces'. 1 In this paper, however, we shall be treating on the second group, that is better known as the penitential act. And I have purposely stressed the words 'at the beginning of the mass in the Roman Ordinals', since we find other kinds of penitential acts in other places. of the mass,2 and, besides, we find them as well in other liturgical sources and contexts other than the 'Ordines', as we shall later hint at. More over, I shall be speaking first on the history and evolution of the second group of apologies at the beginning of the mass, then on its theology and function in liturgy. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION To begin with, this penitential act is composed of the reciprocal confession of one's sins - the confiteor - with the accompanying ab solution - that is, the 'Misereatur' and the 'Indulgentiam' prayers. However, we do not find this structure immediately in the 'Ordines'. So much so, many authors tend to agree that until it finally and definitively found its place in the Roman Ordinals, by the XIII century and then im posed on the Universal Church by the post-Tridentine missal of Pius V, it had undergone an evolutionary phase that can be traced since the 'Ordo Romanus Primus'. Thus, the silent reverence of the celebrant as he bows at the foot of the altar, that is, the action of the celebrant more than any definitive prayer, is considered as the forerunner of the Confi- 1 Cf. M. RIGHETTI - Storia Liturgica (Ancore - 1956) vol. III, nn. 117-118. 2 Cf. J\, NOCENT - De Celebratione Eucharistica et de sua Historia Genetica. 'Quaestiones Sp edal es' (Atheneum Sancti Anselmi de U rbe, Romae - 1969) pp. 51-56. 52 THE PENITENTIAL ACT IN THE 'ORDINES ROMANI' 53 teor, even though the latter existed earlier in other liturgical contexts. 3 To bring some examples, I shall be quoting from the 'Ordines' them selves: ORDO ROMANUS I (beginning of VIII cent.): ' ••• pontifex inclinat capu t ad altare, surgens at orans et faciet crucem in fronte sua et dat pacem unl. eplscopO.' ••• ,4 ORDO IV (end of VIII cent.): ' ••• deinde psallit ante altare et stat, inclinato capite ••• et dum dixerit schola ad versum repetendum, surgit pontifex ab oratione et osculat evangelium qui est super al- tare ••• '5 ORDO VI (IX cent.): ' •.• debet pontifex venire in tribunal Ecclesiae et indinare caput contra altare •• .'6 ORDO X (middle of X cent.): ' ••• inclinans se Deum pro peccatis SUlS deprecetur ••• ,7 By the first third of the XI century, the celebrant shared this prayer with the ministers around him and begs also their meditation which was offered to him at once in the form of a respons'e to his confession. It seems likely here that the confiteor and the accompanying prayers, the 'Misereatur' and the 'Indulgentiam', were quite naturally introduced at the beginning of the mass, since that moment expressed a penitential act, which was precisely expressed by the confiteor-misereatur-indul gentiam structure as early as the VIII century but in a different liturgical context, namely, at sacramental confession and as a general confession by way of introducing 'Prime'. 8 Besides, the mutual asking for pardon 3Cf. ].]UNGMANN - Missarum Sollemnia (New Revised & Abridged Edition) Burns & Oates, London, 1959 pp. 199-213. Cf., also A. NOCENT, op., cit. 4 Cf. M. ANDRIEU - Les Ordines Romani Du Haut Moyen Age, II Les Textes (Ordines I-XIII) Louvain - 1948, p.82. 5 ib., p. 159. 6ib., pp. 330-331. 7 ib., p. 353. 8 Cf. ]. ]UNGMANN, op. cit. Cf., also H. LECLERCQ - Dictionnaire D' Archeologie Chretienne et De Liturgie, 'Confiteor', Letouzey et Ane Edit. (Paris - 1948) v. HI, 2, col. 2551-3. Here the author refers us to two footnotes, nn.2 & 3. The first says that the most ancient indication to the confiteor is found in t~ prayer preceding sacramental confession with Egbert of York (+ 735); the second foot note refers us ~ Chrodegang of Metz (+ 743) who, in giving a description of 54 GEORGE SCHEMBRI between the celebrant and the ministers, also indicates the VII-VIU century monastic custom (the Regula Magistri, VII - 'laxant mutua de licta'), by which monks confessed their sins before one another and asked pardon not only from God, but also from fellow monks whom they may have offended. 9 Moreover; the sign of the cross at the 'Indulgen dam', is derived from the absolution rite in auricular confession, so much so, certain mass Ordinaries even contain the invocation to the celebrant to give a penance which resulted in a Pater Noster, Ave Maria or some other prayer. 10 By the XII century, this penitential structure at the beginning of the mass, received various embellishments which were quite in line with the Gothic spirit of the day, although it must be noted that this was not accepted everywhere. Thus we first find an in vocation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, seemingly because of the influence of St. Bernard, and then to a whole list of Saints which gives the im pression that everyone could add as much as one desired. Consequently, the IIIrd Council of Ravenna (1314) decreed that the saints to be men tioned were to be, the Blessed Virgin, John the Baptist, and SS. Peter and Paul. Religious Orders could add their founder-saints. l1 Be sides, a long list of sins were also named. An Ordo of Tours, for example, enumerates as far as 54 grave sins. 12 Beforehand, the Sacramentary of Echteroach (XI cent.) contains an express exhortation not to exaggerate. And Pope Innocent In (+ 1215) adds later that, since these prayers are a general and open confession, and not a specific and private one, then there was no need to name the sinS. 13 Prime, starts with the confiteor and general absolution. We get also the text: 'Confiteor Dno et tibi, frater, quod peccavi in cogitatione et in locutione et in opere: propterea precor te, ora pro me'. The response: 'Misereatur tibi omni potens Deus, indulge at tibi peccata tua, liberet te ab omni malo, conservet te in omni bono, et perducat te ad vitam aeternam'. To which all answer, AMEN. 9 Cf. M. RIGHETTl, op. cit. 10 ib., cf. also A.G. MARTlMORT - L' Eglise en priere, 'Les prieres du bas de Z'auteZ,' Desclee & Co., Tournai (Belgium - 1965) 3rd ed., pp. 335-6. Here the author says that the 'Indulgentiam' constituted the ordinary form of sacramental confession in those days, and furthermore, refers us, in footnote n.2, to the Pontifical of Durandus of Mende (XIII) as quoted by M. Andrieu (op. cit., v.IIl, p.643) who says that in this same pontifical, these prayers have a quasi sacramental character, even because of the mentioning of imposing a penitence. 11 Cf. 1. ]UNGMANN, and M. RIGHETTI, op. cit. 12 Cf. Ordo of Tours, cited by A. MARTENE in De ant. eccL rit~ I, 536. 13 Cf. M. RIGHETTI, op. cit. THE PENITENTIAL ACT IN THE 'ORDINES ROMANI' 55 However, it is relevant to note that these embellishments which ac companied the penitential act at the beginning of the mass and which often called provincial councils and Popes to exhort against exaggera tion, did not normally occur in Rome and in Italy, but in the Northern countries such as France and Germany, even because of the Gothic spirit which flourished more abundantly in these latter countries, es pecially in the later middle ages. On the contrary, Rome remained more sobre and disciplined in its liturgical worship, which may explain in a way the various attempts made by the Popes to exhort against exaggera tions. This may also explain why in the missal which was carried all over Europe by the Friar minors, and which had come from Rome, we find a more definitive and disciplined form, which was later universally imposed for universal liturgical usage by the post-Tridencine Missal 0 f Pius V. And besides, a more simpler form, which recalls Chrodegang's formula (cf. supra) still remained in usage up to our days in the Domini can and Carthusian rites. THEOLOGY AND FUNCTION We have already treated somehow this subject earlier in the paper, since in dealing on the structure and evolution of the penitential act at the beginning of the mass, we have delineated certain of its charac teristics which included the theological ones. However, here they will be treated in greater details, putting more emphasis on the element of the 'apologies' of which they form part even if in the process we shall have to turn once again to points that have been already mentioned earlier. To start with, the penitential act at the beginning of the mass, belong to the 'apologies', since we find in it the chief elements of this liturgi cal 'genre'. For the apologies were private prayers said in a low voice by the priest without the need of letting the people hear what he was saying. They consisted mainly of his acknowledgement of personal guilt and unworthiness to approach the altar of sacrifice. Thus he felt the need to gain absolution from his faults before starting the mass. And although we also find such prayers at other parts of the mass, yet their place at the beginning of the mass is perhaps the most convenient. Obviously then, we get in them an antithesis between the majoesty of God, on one hand, and the miserable and wretched state of the sinner 56 GEORGE SCHEMBRI - in our case the officiating priest and later on those who shared with him these prayers, on the other, the terrible judge that is, God, and the wretched sinner, without the mediating love and mercy of Christ.14 The 'confiteor' in fact tries to invoke this pardon from the majesty of God, which is why in its structure it has close connotations with the sacra ment of Penance, from which it is derived. We have already treated this theme earlier (Cf. footnotes 8-10); however, it may be interesting to add that it was customary in the monastry of Cluny for the priest to put the stole after the recitation of the confiteor and during the 'misereatur', that is before the 'indulgentiam', where he made the sign of the cross as an indication of penance and reconciliation. Besides, though in most occasions the community was left out from making this act with the priest and with the ministers around him, when these were later left to share in his confession, yet there was also the custom in Normandy for the celebrant to .turn to the people at the 'indulgentiam', thus 'including them in the absolution, and then signals the choir to start the 'introit'. 15 But once this medieval period was imbued with a deep sense of guilt, and once as it were God the Father and Christ were united and man felt that a deep chasm separated him from his God, since the role of Christ as a Mediator was thus neglected, then there was felt the concomitant need of seeking other mediators, for which reason there sprang the cult for the saints. Yet stilI, this had a fundamental theological meaning behind it and especially at the confiteor, where many Saints were in troduced, since it was the expression of the priest's, and indirectly of the faithful whom he represented, sinfulness and unworthiness before God's majesty, composed of two absolution formularies that head for remission of sins not in view of the Sacrament of Confession's 'ex opere operato', but of a sacramental one - 'ex opere operantis Ecclesiae'. It includes then, an invocation of both the Church Militant and of the Church Triumphant,16 and as we have already stressed earlier, it was always recognized officially as a general and open confession of one's sins with the exclusion of grave ones. 17 14Cf. F. CABROL - Dictionnaire D' Archeologie Chretienne et De Liturgie, 'Apologies,' Letouzey et Ane Edit. (Paris - 1907) v. I, 2, col. 2591£f. 15Cf. lR- JUNGMANN, op. cit., p.207. 16Cf. CALLEWAERT - Con/iteor in the Mass, p.191, as quoted by M. Righetti, op. cit. THE PENITENTIAL ACT IN THE 'ORDINES ROMANI' 57 From the above considerations concerning the history, evolution, theology, and liturgical function of the penitential act at the beginning of the mass in the 'Ordines Romani', we have seen then, that this same act has undergone a progressive process of growth which did not lack spontaneity. And although the Church has continually tried to check its exhuberance in its mode of expression that often led to exaggerations, yet it could not completly confine it as the private and secret introduc tory prayer of the celebrant and the ministers by a way of disposing themselves better for the Eucharistic Celebration. For the various attempts and instances in its development to incl ude the faithful, whether directly or, as often the case, indirectly, is a clear indication that this. same Sacrifice is to be shared with the community who has precisely gathered in the Church for worship. Conseque'ntly, the survival ot'the penitential act at the beginning of the mass, is a sign of its authentic function in the liturgy. GEORGE SCHEMBR! l7Perhaps it is relevant to refer here to P. RADO - Enchiridion Liturgicum, De formula liturgica ahsolutionis (Herder-Rome) 1961, v. H, pp. 850-852, where he says that the recital of the confiteor or other formulas similar to it, precede the actual confession and are equivalent to a general confession. Besides, he adds that the 'Misereatur' and the 'Indulgentiam', together with the 'Passio D.N.]. Ch.'. may be omitted 'ex justa causa', which implies that the formulas that are contained in the penitential act at the beginning of the mass, are not esential to sacramental confession, even though they form part of its structure. (cf. footnotes 12 & IJ). OUR LADY AND SAL V ATION THE great Protestant theologian, Karl Barth of Switzerland, who died last December at the same time as Thomas Merton, used to say that in Catholic theological circles the most important term was the word and. He explained that while Protestants will discuss Jesus, grace, sin and other issues, Catholics will say - Jesus and Mary, grace and merit, sin and punishment. While we do not agree completely with the notion of Karl Barth we believe that the connection of Jesus and Mary is fully valid. Mary has no meaning apart from her Son, while Jesus as the Son of Mary assumed a dimension of human nature that makes Him so much like ourselves. We must consider Mary in her relation to Christ if we would understand the historical human Jesus who is also eternal and divine. Among Catholics and Orthodox there should be no difficulty in ap preciating Mary's role in the mystery of salvation. Many feasts in the western Church originated in the East and the most prominent title for Mary in the East, Mother of God (Theotokos), is still the basis for Cath olic belief and devotion in the West. Protestants do not have the same attitude towards Mary, but in this age of ecumenism it seems that many Ouistian writers are re-thinking their position in regard to the Virgin Mary. Surely we can all agree on the picture of Mary as 'pottrayed by the gospels. Vatican Council II has a very significant statement about Our Lady, as found in the Constitution on the Liturgy: 'In celebrating the annual cycle of Christ's mysteries the Church honors with a special love, the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, who is joined by an inseparable bond to the saving work of her Son. In her the Church holds up and admires as the most excellent fruit of the redemption and joyfully contemplates as in a faultless model, that which she herself wholly desires and hopes to be' (103). This terse statement is loaded with spiritual gold. 'The Church honor~ with a special love' because Mary is unique in the plan of sal vation. No saint, no angel has a role such as she. Love for her is of a special character in the life of the Church. She is the", Mother of God, 58 OUR LADY AND SALVATION 59 proclaimed by the Church in her creeds and defined in 431 by the Coun cil of Ephesus. Mary 'is joined by an inseparable bond in the saving work of herSon'. She is joined to Him in the mystery of the Incarnation, the Redemption, in the foundation and -formation of the Church. She is present in the entire mystery of salvation, not simply at Cana and Calvary as histor ical events, but through the entire life of the Church as Christ continues and prolongs His saving mission in and through the Church. Mary has a role to play in salvation-history now and will do so until the end of the world. Mary is the Mother of the redeeming Jesus who continues His activity for all mankind. We may rightly speak of the inseparability of Jesus and Mary in the life of the Church as well as in His incarnate and redemptive existence here on earth. 'In her the Church holds up and admires as the most excellent fruit of the redemption' because Mary was saved by her Son from the pitfall of sin, redeemed in a more excellent way because of Him. Mary is a model of all members of the Church. She is the Mother of Church, in it, not apart from it. Her virtues are reflected in the apostolic lives of her children, loving and serving the Church and all men. Such a consideration brings happiness to men - 'the Church joyfully contemplates' the role of Mary not simply in the past but at the present time as she continues to proclaim the mission and message of Jesus and makes her pilgrim way to her eternal home. The Church looks to Maryas its Mother and seeks to resemble her in faith, in love, and in union with Christ. There is a title for Mary which stresses her role in the life and role of the Church. It is Our Lady of the Atonement which originated at Graymoor, Garrison N Y under Fr. Paul J ames Francis, S.A. and Mother Lurana Mary Francis, S.A. who founded the Society of the Atonement. The Ato~ement title was not intended simply as a name for Mary be stowed by religious communities. It has deep theological and spiritual meaning: Mary in the role of salvation (Atonement) and in the work of Christian Unity (At-one-ment). As Jesus died on the cross to unite men with God, so Mary shared in the glory of that sacrifice and that act of love. The Church continues the role of the atoning Jesus in time; Mary shares in its mystery of salvation and reconciliation. The feast of Our Lady of the Atonement is celebrated on July 9 by the Atonement Friars and Sisters and their associates but it deserves to be honoreCl: much more widely. 60 TlTUS CRANNY The theology of Mary is a thorny problem in ecumenical circles, but it is not insuperable. And while it is not the most important matter of prayer and discussion, somehow it seems to have an emotional character all its own. And if somehow this emotion might lead to a deeper under standing, then the way to unity would open wide. For Mary is Our Lady of the Atonement, of Reconciliation and love. She is the Mother of Christian Unity. TITUS CRANNY, S.A.