Page images
PDF
EPUB

"I am persuaded that one cannot believe this without falling into the superstition of vain observance, which is the same into which persons fall who imagine that when one sees the image or statue of St. Christopher, on any particular day, one is joyous and full of laughter during the following night; one cannot die a bad death that day, and one is certain to be well, and not to be exposed to any danger (p. 436).

"The mass of St. Veronica' appears to me wholly apocryphal and superstitious, if it supposes that there was a saint called Veronica at the time of the death of Jesus Christ, for there is no proof that there ever was such a person; and the ancient martyrologies make no mention of her. It has only been since the middle of the fifteenth century that it has been imagined that there was a woman of this name at Jerusalem, who presented a handkerchief to our Lord before his passion, and on which our Lord, in wiping his divine face, impressed its image. Baronius, and many other modern writers say, on the authority of Methodius, reported by Marianus Scotus, that this woman was named Berenice, or Veronica. St. Antonius says she was an intimate friend of the Virgin. Philip of Bergamo states that she was a disciple of Jesus Christ; that Tiberius made her come to Rome. A Life of St. Veronica was published at Paris, in 1685, in which are collected most of the things which the moderns have invented about this pretended saint. In most of the churches where St. Veronica is honoured, her feast or memory is celebrated on Shrove-Tuesday, (on account of the masques which are customary on that day,) with a view to turn worldly people from the excesses and follies of the Carnival, by representing to them the image of their Saviour tinged in the adorable blood which He shed for their salvation. And in fine, because painters, sculptors, and carvers, usually represent this image as being held by a woman, it has been imagined that this woman was named Veronica.

"It is thus that popular errors and superstitious devotions establish and multiply themselves in the Church, contrary to the spirit, the intentions, even of the rules of the Church-through the want of zeal and light amongst pastors, who are represented to us in the Gospel as that father of a family who slept while his enemy sows the tares among the good wheat which he had sown in his field.

"The mass of St. Veronica,' then, is not the mass of a holy woman called Veronica, but of an image of our Lord impressed on a sheet, and to which they gave this name by syncope and by transposition of vera iconica or vera icona. For the authors of the lower Latinity used iconica or icona for image or resemblance, as Vossius remarks.

"It is evident that the name of Veronica means this image. Pierre de Mailli, who lived in the time of Pope Alexander III., and Romanus, Canon of St. Peter, more than five hundred years since, declare that the suaire with which Jesus Christ wiped His face was called Veronica. Peter the deacon, who died in the middle of the twelfth century, Augustine, Bishop of Piento, in the time of Paul III., declare that the Veronica is the image of our Lord. Matthew of Westminster, speaking of Innocent III,, says that this pope made a solemn procession at Rome, 'in which the image of our Lord's face, which was

called the Veronica,' was carried with much reverence. Pope Nicholas IV., in a bull dated 1290, speaks of the representation of Christ's face, which the faithful commonly call the Veronica. Thus all the masses in which the Veronica is considered as a holy person, and invoked as such, relate to false worship; and under this view should be considered the 'mass of St. Veronica' in the Ambrosian Missal, wherein are prayers in which the prayers of St. Veronica' are sought; and also the Missal of the Church of Jaen in Spain, the Missal of Chartres, and all the other missals in which the mass of St. Veronica is found with these or similar prayers."

Those who have seen the relics at Cologne will feel interested in the following discussion on the history of St. Ursula.

"The history of St. Ursula and the eleven thousand virgins is so full of contradictions, and of events which appear so far removed, not only from truth, but even from probability, that it is hard to say what ought to be believed regarding it. Baronius admits candidly that the genuine acts of these saints being lost, every one has written about them as he pleased, to the great prejudice of truth. Sigebert makes St. Ursula, the daughter of Nothus, prince of Great Britain; the author of the acts of these saints calls him Deonotus, king of Cornwall;` Peter de Natalibus says she was the daughter of Manus, king of Scotland; Geoffry says she was promised in marriage to Cemanus, a prince of Great Britain; Pierre de Natalibus says it was Ethereus, son of the king of England. Baronius makes much more of Geoffry of Monmouth than of the other writers; yet as he agrees that he has inserted in his history a quantity of fables, we cannot much depend on what is there read of St. Ursula and the eleven thousand virgins. For it is hard enough to believe that eleven thousand virgins went from London to Cologne, from Cologne to Rome, from Rome to Basle in ships; from thence to Rome again, from Rome to Cologne. Some learned persons have believed that it was necessary to reduce the eleven thousand to eleven virgins. Father Sirmond (of the Society of Jesus) had another notion on the eleven thousand virgins: he reduced them into one virgin, called Undecimilla! There being, therefore, nothing certain or decided on the number of the companions of St. Ursula, and the history of this saint and her companions being also crammed with tales invented at pleasure, if a mass referring to St. Ursula and her companions indefinitely did not constitute a false worship, I can readily believe that a mass of St. Ursula and 'the eleven thousand virgins' does so."—pp. 437-447. The repetition of a particular mass is by some held to ensure salvation.

"The mass of the 'Name of Jesus' is in many Missals, printed subsequently to A.D. 1500. Those who cause it to be said for thirty Fridays ' will not die without contrition, without confession, without a worthy satisfaction, without a holy communion.' Here is Paradise to be obtained at an easy rate! To go thither there is no need of penances,

mortifications, alms, good works. It is only to hire a priest to say the mass ' of the Name of Jesus' for thirty Fridays, without even being obliged to be present; and we are certain to die in the grace of God, in final perseverance! Whether this doctrine is Catholic, I leave it to the divines to decide.”—p. 466.

[ocr errors]

Superstitions are very frequently attributable to the monks. Here is an instance, in which serious errors have been introduced. "There is a mass which is entitled, in almost all the Missals where it occurs, the mass of the most sacred rosary,' and the rosary is called 'most sacred' in the first collect of the mass. We may, perhaps, very well speak of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the Word of God as 'most sacred.' The Church, Councils, and Fathers speak of them so; but it is an inordinate piety which speaks thus of the 'rosary,' which is infinitely less valuable than the body and blood of Jesus Christ or the Word of God. In some Missals, indeed, it only bears the title of the 'most holy' rosary. But the title of most holy' is not now given except to the Holy Sacrament and the pope. But the greater part of the monks have been in the habit of carrying matters to excess, especially when they relate to the saints, the festivals, and confraternities of their orders, and the relics, devotions, and indulgences which they have in their churches; and they will never correct these excesses while they are interested in them.

[ocr errors]

"The following words of the first collect would, in my opinion, amply deserve to be revised. Præsta, quæsumus, ut amborum (Christi et Mariæ) meritis per sacra ter quina (quindecim) mysteria sacratissimi Rosarii completis, &c. 'Grant, we beseech thee, that the merits of both (Jesus and Mary) being accomplished by the holy fifteen mysteries of the most sacred rosary,' &c. This parallel of the merits of the Son of God with those of the Holy Virgin, amborum meritis, does not appear correct. There is too much disproportion between them; the former are infinite, the other finite; the one procures for us grace and glory, independently of any other, and by themselves; the others do not; and there is reason to apprehend that the Holy Virgin is offended at this equality which is placed between her merits and those of her Son. Moreover, I do not know in what sense the merits of the Son of God and those of his holy mother are 'accomplished' by the 'fifteen mysteries of the most sacred rosary.' Can the rosary put the finishing hand and give perfection to the merits of the Son of God, and to those of the Holy Virgin? Were the merits of the Son and those of the mother imperfect, and were they defective in something before the invention and establishment of the rosary? This difficulty would well reward the trouble of being cleared up."-p. 474.

On the causes of the enormous number of masses that are said in the Church of Rome we have the following pungent remarks. "ON SUPERFLUITY OF MASSES.-Peter, Chanter of the Church of Paris, produces positive reasons to prove that it is sufficient for priests to say one mass every day, and that they ought not to say more (p. 84).

Many of these reasons are opposed to the great number of masses which are said in the church at present. For myself, I am contented to say, that it seems as if it would be more conducive to veneration for the august sacrifice of the altar if it were more seldom celebrated, and if fewer masses were said than has been the case for some centuries (p, 89), St. Odo, second Abbot of Cluny, testifies, in his Conferences, that at the beginning of the Church the mass was not said so frequently as at present, but that it was said with as much more devotion as it was more rarely said. Formerly but few masses were said in the monasteries, and they were scarcely said except on Sundays and feast-days. St. Francis d'Assise desired and exhorted the priests of his order to say only one mass in the day in their convents; and in case there were many priests in the same convent, to content themselves with assisting at the mass of one of their brethren."-iii. 94.

66

'Why then are there so many masses now in religious communities? It is impossible to love the Church with a sincere and disinterested affection, and not to groan before God at the sight of the abuses which are produced by the great number of masses which are now said in ecclesiastical and regular communities, in parishes, and elsewhere. Alvarus Pelagius speaks of these abuses in these terms :-'there are so many masses said at present for money, by custom and habit, by complaisance, to conceal crimes, and to appear righteous before men, that the sacred body of Jesus Christ is becoming contemptible to the people and the clergy.'

"We are convinced of the truth of what is said by this bishop, who was so learned and so zealous for the good discipline of the Church. For how many priests are there who, notwithstanding their practice of criminal habits, do not omit to say the mass frequently, and every day, in mere hypocrisy, in order to conceal their crimes, and to appear righteous before men?' How many there are who would frequently not say it, because they are not sufficiently disposed, if it were not to gratify their friends, their superiors, or the great? How many are there who look on the priesthood as a trade, who go to the altar as artizans to their work, without regard to the Divine Host which they are to immolate? Is not money the principal end which an infinite number of others propose to themselves in saying mass? How very small is the number of those who say it from a principle of devotion! How few are there who would say it if they did not hope for some payment from it! The payment helps to support them, to pay their pensions in their communities. Whether they are fit to say mass or not, they do not much trouble themselves. They must say it in order to pay the expense of their communities, or of their sacristies. If they do not say it, they have neither money, bread, nor portion. It is only through interest that they say it. They have no other God in saying it but the god of money, to use the language of Bourdoise, in speaking of clergy who did not assist at the Divine offices, except when there was something to gain. Again, is there not a shameful trade in masses in many ways? There are priests who undertake a greater number than they can say,

[ocr errors]

and who either do not say them at all, or else get them said by other priests, to whom they give less than they have received to say them. There are other priests who receive many payments for one mass (which occurs frequently in large towns); who say two masses a day in two different churches, in order to have two payments; others who take more for one mass than the custom of the place allows; others who say masses by anticipation, when no one has yet asked for them, for the first who shall ask of them. In certain churches they take at least ten sous for the payment for each mass, in others they take at least fifteen; yet in the former they give only eight to the priests who say it, in the latter they give ten, eleven, twelve, or thirteen. I know many wealthy churches where this is done under pretence of providing the ministers with bread, wine, lights, and ornaments to say mass."—iii. 99.

"If this shameful commerce in masses were well weighed, and the evil motives which lead to so many being said at present in our churches, I have no doubt that much false, undue, and pernicious worship would be perceived in it. God preserve me from believing that the multitude of masses is superstitious in itself. It is not difficult to perceive in what occasions it is susceptible of superstition, and in what occasions it is extreme. We should not perhaps be much mistaken in suspecting, not to say in accusing of it, those persons who consider it a merit to hear the mass on all work days, and even to hear several, while they omit the indispensable duties of their state and profession. This ill-regulated devotion is properly a superfluous worship."

One of the most common observances in the Church of Rome, the Novenas, is thus proved to be superstitious.

"ON NOVENAS.-If there be no superstition in saying masses for the dead on the ninth day, it is a superstitious and a pagan practice, according to St. Augustine, to say a novena of masses, or nine masses successively for them, on the nine first days after their decease; and the priests ought to be prevented from saying them, and the laity from causing them to be said. St. Augustine, Alcuin, Amalarius, Durandus, say that there is paganism and superstition in this custom. The pagans deplored their dead for nine days, and on the ninth day collected their ashes and committed them to the tomb.

"Nevertheless, for nine days there are certain prayers, oblations, austerities, pilgrimages, and almsgiving, and novenas of masses are said for the living, and sometimes even for the dead. The Church well knows all these practices, and tolerates them, and appears not to perceive them, if she does not approve them. It seems that Gerson does not condemn them in some parts of his works (p. 114), But, if his meaning be understood, it will not be found that he is in favour of novenas. In his treatise 'Of the Direction of the Heart,' he only excuses them, because those who practise them may think and hope that in practising them with the piety of the Christian faith and religion, they will not be displeasing to God or the saints. But there are few who thus think and hope. They practise novenas in the belief that if they failed in them for a single

« PreviousContinue »