Summer Saints

Saint Onophrius by Master Darmsatdter circa 1460

Some of the saints went around naked - in summer and winter.  They were usually termed 'Fools for Christ' and their nakedness was penitential, an expression of extreme humility - and of course, poverty.

Today is the feast of St. Onuphrius the Great, a desert father saint.  He was quite hairy, and a bit more modest, since he also wore a loin cloth made of leaves.  Some saints didn't, but I doubt they would be a temptation against chastity for anyone.

Onuphrius, Macarius, and Peter

Basil the Fool

Mary of Egypt

Francis of Assisi

Brother Juniper, who gave his tunic to a beggar.

'Nude Beach' - T. Nelson

Great Performances

Gaudete*

They who truly adore God must adore Him in spirit and in truth.

I watched a bit of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas concert on PBS last evening.  I think it was from last year and it was very grand, as usual.  They had a live nativity which was styled and costumed very much like a Neapolitan creche.  I thought the presentation was rather Catholic.  If the presentation could have included a priest and deacons dressed in elaborate vestments, along with a couple dozen altar boys, partially obscured amid clouds of incense, it would probably attract crowds of traditional Mass Catholics.

The idea came to mind after I saw a couple of Facebook notices that the FSSP church in North Minneapolis is hosting Cardinal Burke tomorrow for a Pontifical Mass.  Today the had a Rorate Mass - candlelit.  I do not recall attending either as a young boy, but I knew the school sisters were happy to attend.  Friends on Facebook noted they would be attending both events this weekend.  The Masses are beautiful indeed, yet the notices do impress me as promotional ads for a special performance - staring Cardinal Burke, and that sort of thing.  Before you get mad that I said that, please know that I understand that it is not like that - but it may seem like that to outsiders.

See that your bodies are living temples of the Holy Spirit, Who dwells in you.

It's a curious situation the Latin rite finds itself in.  One Mass in two forms, as well as two calendars for the two forms.  A week or so ago I praised the beauty of a Mass celebrated at a Baroque altar and a friend suggested I go to All Saints, the FSSP parish, mistaking my admiration for the beautiful setting, as well as my regret that many churches got rid of so much ornament, as a sort of unhappiness with the Ordinary Form of Mass.  I'm not at all unhappy with the Ordinary Form.

Many traditionalists complain the Ordinary Form is all about the people and the personality of the priest-celebrant.  That's not my experience.  That said, advertising this Cardinal or that Bishop appearing for a Pontifical Mass at the Throne with several priests and deacons and dozen of altar boys in attendance, amid clouds of incense, seems like promoting an episode of Great Performances.  It is said the Ordinary Form is narcissistic with all the attention upon the celebrant and not worship, all about 'us' and not God.  I think not.

I love this.

The interplay of light and darkness speak to the meaning of Advent and the coming of the Light of the world.


I also believe it is an error to think that one form of Mass is holier than than the other, or more efficacious than the other.  This seems to be the defense on some level, and that simply is not true.  (I'm also thinking it is very wrong to play the EF against the OF, and/or to discuss its use in terms of regime change and who is for it or against it, as well as to enlist new followers or promoters as one would for a theatrical production, and that sort of thing.)  The Rorate Mass is a beautiful celebration in honor of Our Lady, and the theological/mystical symbolism is very rich, so I am not at all dismissing it.  But what exactly is a Rorate Mass?

The Rorate Caeli Mass is a traditional Advent devotion wherein the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary for Advent is offered just before dawn. In many instances families and individuals travel an hour or more, rising and arriving very early for this stunningly beautiful Mass. The interplay of light and darkness speak to the meaning of Advent and the coming of the Light of the world. - Finish reading at FSSP

I think some people are drawn to deeper devotion in and through the traditional liturgical rites.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  It is their personal experience but it cannot be stated that therefore the extraordinary Form is holier or more pleasing to God when in fact the Church celebrates the Ordinary Form as the central form of the liturgy.  (I'm not a liturgist so I'm not sure I expressed that well.)   Playing the two forms against one another, or saying one is more efficacious than the other is an error.  It seems to me that attitude is also a form of snobbery which is often observable in other areas of the lives of such people.  (It's sometimes fairly obvious on social media.)

Something to think about from St. John of the Cross...

The reason, then, why some spiritual persons never enter perfectly into the true joys of the spirit is that they never succeed in raising their desire for rejoicing above these things that are outward and visible. Let such take note that, although the visible oratory and temple is a decent place set apart for prayer, and an image is a motive to prayer, the sweetness and delight of the soul must not be set upon the motive or the visible temple, lest the soul should forget to pray in the living temple, which is the interior recollection of the soul. The Apostle, to remind us of this, said: 'See that your bodies are living temples of the Holy Spirit, Who dwells in you.'  And this thought is suggested by the words of Christ which we have quoted, namely that they who truly adore God must adore Him in spirit and in truth.  For God takes little heed of your oratories and your places set apart for prayer if your desire and pleasure are bound to them, and thus you have little interior detachment, which is spiritual poverty and renunciation of all things that you may possess.

In order, then, to purge the will from vain desire and rejoicing in this matter, and to lead it to God in your prayer, you must see only to this, that your conscience is pure, and your will perfect with God, and your spirit truly set upon Him.

Of certain evils into which those persons fall who give themselves to pleasure in sensible objects and who frequent places of devotion in the way that has been described.

Many evils, both interior and exterior, come to the spiritual person when he desires to follow after sweetness of sense in these matters aforementioned.  For, as regards the spirit, he will never attain to interior spiritual recollection, which consists in neglecting all such things, and in causing the soul to forget all this sensible sweetness, and to enter into true recollection, and to acquire the virtues by dint of effort. As regards exterior things, he will become unable to dispose himself for prayer in all places, but will be confined to places that are to his taste; and thus he will often fail in prayer, because, as the saying goes, he can understand no other book than his own village. - S. John, Ascent

There is an often repeated 

complaint that the 'Presider's Chair'

in the 'Novus Ordo' either 

took the place of the tabernacle

or blocked the view

of the tabernacle,

and made the narcissistic celebrant 

the focus.

What?

 *The word 'gaudy' is derived from 'gaudium'.  Isn't that interesting?

The religious habit... it's history and why would anyone...? Never mind.

"I could never be a monk/priest - I never liked the clothes." - My paraphrase of Flannery's famous line, "She could never be a saint..."

I'm not much on habits, as most of my readers know.  I even asked my Bruderhoff friends if they really had to dress like that to belong to their community.  And when they left, I asked if they still dressed like that - and evidently the wife does.  Then there are those Amish.  When it comes to Muslim dress, I'm just as opinionated, no way do I think burkas or turbans are a nice look.  It doesn't matter though, because it is just my personal opinion - which means nothing.  I believe people can wear whatever they like, or feel obliged to wear.  I don't care so much about it any more - in heaven we will be clothed in light, and we'll look good.  Obviously some of my readers and religious people do care - a lot - about what people wear.  My one friend asked me about sexy lingerie... I know!  Or I should say - I don't even want to know.  But I digress.  Quick shoulder hunch and sheepish smile...

That said, I came across a possible defense, and or excuse, why some contemporary women religious do not wear old fashioned religious torture-habits as they once were obliged to do.  (You know of course that Pius XII asked women religious to modify their habits to be able to adjust to modern necessities, such as driving.)  But first I must tell you that when some orders were founded, the founding mothers did not necessarily adopt a habit, likewise, in orders such as St. Elizabeth Seton's Sisters of Charity, the women essentially wore the 'widow's weeds' of their day - which became their habit.  The bonnet is a dead give away that it was the fashion of the time, or at least, from that epoch's recent past.  Therefore, one may imagine how the pastel pantsuits and flowery blouses so many women religious wear today could be seen as the 'new' religious habit - with a little lapel pin of course.  

There may be precedence BTW.  There still exists the Daughters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded at Rennes, France.  If I recall correctly, they were founded during the French Revolution.  The women wore secular clothes from the beginning, for obvious reasons, and later were permitted to retain secular dress, some even living at home.  I've met some of these sisters who once operated a retreat house in St. Paul.  I mention these sisters because some people believe a silly maxim, "No habit, no vocation."   

Of course the Church desires consecrated religious wear a distinct sign of their religious consecration and commitment, as has been the norm since the earliest days of religious life in the Church.  In his exhausting extensive Post-Apostolic Exhortation, Vita consecrata - a document all candidates for religious life should read BTW - John Paul II speaks to the issue here:

… The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ. 

Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.

• Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.
• Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.  - Vita consecrata

The last two bullet points provides the wiggle room, if you will.  Like all documents, elements in our great big Roman Catholic Church interpret these types of exhortations according to their particular interests and needs: 'suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.'   With the approval of the local ordinary and legitimate superiors - they are 'good to go' - and none of us mere mortals know where they will end up either, nor are we competent to discern if they have a vocation or not.  The situation - or rather, the fluidity of interpretation of such documents, is very much in keeping with Catholic tradition.  It's not unlike the continuing ordination of ssa men as priests and bishops:  Officially, they aren't supposed to be admitted to ordination, but there are always exceptions, 'Where valid reasons of the apostolate call for it...' - and such discernment is left to the proper authorities - not to the laity or com-box inquisitors.  (I lifted that term from Mark Shea.)

So there you have it!  And you know what they say, "Judge not, and you will not be judged."  And, "Let them wear cake!"

Bonus factoid:   The 12th century the German abbess Hildegard von Bingen, advocated a style for her nuns that included extravagant and lavish white silk habits worn with golden head pieces designed to present the nun to Christ in her most beautiful form.  I know!  I think she was weird anyway. - Source

Bonus link:  This is for women's-religious-habit-lovers everywhere!  Nuns and Sisters

Devoted to Preserving Images of the Traditional Habit

The veiling of women...

There ought to be a law?

I love Fr. Z - everyone who reads me knows that.  I do not comment on his blog because I'm not registered.  No I'm not afraid he wouldn't approve me - I was registered before and he approved me.  I just don't like to register over and over.  There is an advantage to that you know.  Yes, because I can make a post out of what would otherwise be a comment.  Smart, huh?  I did it earlier with Mark Shea and Henry.
.
So anyway - Fr. Z has a pole poll up asking about mantillas on women in church.  Evidently a priest told a woman not to wear her veil while doing the readings for Mass and she asked Fr. Z about it.  Fr. Z felt the priest should not have said what he did - and I agree.  I honestly think that if a woman wants to wear a veil while doing the readings or leading the choir, she should be able to do so.  It is not any more a distraction than any woman doing the reading.  What if a nun in a traditional habit was up there?  Distracting?  See - that's just dumb.
.
Anyway - back to Father's poll.  It seems to be mostly men who think women should wear a head covering in church - and so far 24% believe it should be a matter of canon law.  (But 28% think it should be on a voluntary basis.)   I came in at the end of the polling results after I voted: "I am male and NO. This custom should not return. (3%, 22 Votes)"
.
I know no one here will be surprised by that.  Nevertheless, I don't think it is a big deal if a woman wants to wear a veil - it should be up to the woman to decide.  I'm so liberal, aren't I?
.
Seriously, isn't it curious that so many men care about this?  I worked with a woman who suddenly purchased a mantilla.  I asked her what she was going to do with it.  She said she was going to wear it.  I asked "Why?"
.
"My husband asked me to."
.

Veiled men.
.
On the other hand - sometimes men wear veils.  Greek Orthodox priests/monks do.  Middle eastern men do as well.  I found this photo of a Tuareg man wearing a veil with the following explanation:  Among the Berbers in North Africa and the Tuareq in West Africa, the women do not wear veils but the men do. The Tuareq men wear veils to protect from evil spirits (or desert sand in reality) and start to wear them at the age of 25. 
.
Which reminds me, when I was in the monastery - a long time ago - one of the monks used to make nun's veils and would occasionally wear one himself.  True story.
.
Anyway - Go on over and vote - spike Father's stats.