Dr. Arie G. Kallenberg

In the lifetime of Jesus and for a long time after His death, the cross was considered an instrument of shame by which criminals were executed. For early Christians however, the cross soon became a sign of blessing and redemption.

At the beginning of the fourth century, the cross was accepted all over the Roman Empire as a sign of triumph. The reason for this acceptance was, according to legend, a dream of the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great. In the year 312, on the night before an important battle against his enemy Maxentius, Constantine saw in a dream a trophy of the cross in the heavens, arising from the light of the sun and carrying the message, In Hoc Signo Vinces (“In this sign, you will conquer”). Christ, who appeared to Constantine in the same dream, told him to make a standard, the labarum, in that form for his army. The sign was to be a Chi (X) traversed by Rho (P): These symbols represented the first two letters of the word Christos, which is the Greek spelling of name of Christ. According to the same legend, the next day Constantine ordered that all of his soldiers should fit the labarum symbol on their shields.

Because of this memorable victory, the persecution of Christians stopped, and the Cross began to be considered as a symbol of triumph, from which our salvation derives and on which Christ reigns as King.^[i] For centuries the Holy Cross remained a symbol of triumph. Around 1200 there was to be a dramatic change in the Western view of the cross. As a result of the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) and Francis of Assisi (1181/1182-1226), the view of the cross underwent a decisive change. The focus on Jesus as a human began to be central. No longer was the focus on the crucified Christ as the conqueror of death, but on the earthly, suffering Christ who died on the cross. By means of a literal interpretation of Matthew 10:38 and 16:24 concerning the bearing of one’s cross in imitation of Christ, the identification with the suffering Christ came to be central. The living Christ who triumphed on the cross of glory made way for the suffering Christ who underwent a painful death on the cross.[ii] This vision remains to this day. To become convinced of this, it is enough to look at the crosses which dominate our churches.

In 1238 the Carmelites began to migrate to Europe. Precisely what happened to their liturgy in the period between their arrival in Europe and the publication of Sibert de Beka’s Ordinal in 1312 is not entirely clear. In any case there are no signs that the suffering Christ began to play a role in their liturgy, in contrast to that of the Dominicans, where on May 4, the Feast of the Crown of Thorns can be found in a calendar for the year 1255.[iii] There is not a trace of this feast either in a thirteenth century Carmelite ordinal found in Dublin or in the ordinal of Sibert de Beka. On the contrary, in the liturgy of the Carmelites the Feast of the Crown of Thorns and that of the Holy Lance were mandated only at a very late stage.[iv] Whereas, after the twelfth century, popular devotion and some liturgical rites focused increasingly on the Man of Sorrows as he manifested himself on the cross and inside the tomb, the liturgy of the Carmelites focused on the Risen One: Christ who rose from the tomb, never to die again.

[i]      Louis van Tongeren, Exaltatio crucis, cfr p. 159.

[ii]    Ibid., 270.

[iii]   Kallenberg, Fontes, 292.

[iv]   Idem, op. cit., 56.