Fr. Ton Van der Gulik, O.Carm., General Archivist (2011-2013)

Fr. Ton was born in 1958 in the Netherlands. After secondary school he became a priest student of the diocese of Haarlem and studied at the Missionary College of the Mill Hill missionaries in Roosendaal (NL) and at the Missionary Institute in London. In 1984 he entered the Carmelite Order and continued to study theology and spirituality at the Radboud University of Nijmegen. Father Van der Gulik was ordained priest in 1996. He worked in different parishes and was a spiritual councilor in a hospital and a nursing home. He was also appointed librarian and archivist of the Dutch Carmelite Institute (NCI).

Father Van der Gulik became librarian of the Bibliotheca Carmelitana in Rome in 2010. He is also working as archivist at the General Curia of the Order.

Email: Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo.

On Thursday, the 13th of March, Sr. Mariarosaria Calabrese and Sr. Mariagiulia Verdi, presented the CD, Albertus & Carmel, at the St. Albert's International Centre in Rome to an attendance of some fifty people.

The CD contains twelve songs, all to do with St. Albert of Jerusalem. The variety of songs, composed by the two sisters, gives a feeling for St. Albert as the one who wrote the Rule of Carmel, for the hermits who asked for the Rule and for the world in which all of this happened. The songs also look at the world of today and the kind of contribution someone might make to that world, based on the spirit of St. Albert and the Rule he wrote. Sr. Mariarosaria and Sr. Mariagiulia are both Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, living as hermits under the bishop of Arezzo, and affiliated to the Carmelite Order. They produced the CD both in Italian and in English. They hope it will have a wide diffusion as a way of making the figure and significance of St. Albert known more widely and as a novel way of celebrating the eighth centenary of his death.

The work of the sisters was warmly applauded by all who attended the presentation. The event ended with a rendition of Gounod's Ave Maria, by the international soprano, Felicia Bongiovanni. It is hoped in the future to produce a musical based on this work.

click here if you would like to buy a CD

below is some samples of the CD

Electoral Chapter of the Monastery of Encarnación, Huesca, Spain

The Elective Chapter of the Carmelite Monastery of Encarnación, Huesca, Spain, was held 17-18 February 2014. The following were elected:

• Prioress:  Sr. M. Blanca Barril Vicente, O.Carm.
• 1st Councilor:   Sr. M. Luisa Sanagustín Esperanza, O.Carm.
• 2nd Councilor:  Sr. Immaculada M. Avellana Gilabert, O.Carm.
• 3rd Councilor:   Sr. M. Pilar Borau Alpín, O.Carm.
• 4th Couniclor:   Sr. Pilar M. Andrade Ortega, O.Carm.
• Director of Novices:  Sr. M. Gloria Caballero Vallejo, O.Carm.
• Treasurer:  Sr. M. Pilar Ereza Monesma, O.Carm.
• Sacristan:   Sr. M. Pilar Borau Alpín, O.Carm.

Electoral Chapter of the Monastery of Cerreto, Italy

The Elective Chapter of the Carmelite Monastery of Cerreto, Italy, was held 12 March 2014. The following were elected:

• Prioress:  Sr. M. Miriam Tamiano, O.Carm.
• 1st Councilor:   Sr. M. Joseph Lumicisi, O.Carm.
• 2nd Councilor:  Sr. M. Alberta Diana, O.Carm.
• Director of Novices:  Sr. M. Joseph Lumicisi, O.Carm.
• Treasurer:  Sr. M. Ludovica Benedetti, O.Carm.
• Sacristan:   Sr. Alberta Diana, O.Carm.

On Sunday 9th March the Curia community in Rome held its annual Lenten Retreat. This was led by Dr Thomas Norris, Spiritual Director of the Pontifical Irish College, Rome. He is former Professor of Systematic Theology at St Patrick’s College, Maynooth and was recently Paluch Professor of Theology at Mundelein Seminary, Chicago. He is a member of the International Theological Commission. Author of many books and articles, he spoke to the community about Evangelii Gaudium.

He was an altar server at the Carmelite Friary in Knocktopher, Ireland and grow up close to the ancient Carmelite foundation of 1356. He has a life-long relationship with Carmelites and our spirituality.

Christopher O’Donnell, O.Carm.

In a previous presentation we have seen our Carmelite calling sketched in broad terms. From the general call to all Christians to live in allegiance to Jesus Christ, we are called in a vowed life to following the inspiration of Mary and Elijah our models with a life-style identified as a contemplative fraternity in the midst of the people.

We now look at the values that underpin, and give expression to our charism and we examine the criteria, which govern our choices in this way of life. Though there will be some overlapping, there is an advantage in considering primarily as four values—the desert, prayer, sharing and mission, and in seeing as criteria four other elements—discernment, the Word, the poor and human values. Even though other people might place these somewhat differently, reordering or resetting, these eight elements which we will consider as values and criteria, are important for our identity. When we search for identity we should not look for what is exclusively Carmelite, just as we would not look for a physical distinguishing mark between a Scotsman and an American: one would have a finger that the other did not have_; one would have nails growing on his ears. It is the one human nature that is variously found among peoples. It is the one mystery of Christ that is reflected differently in each religious family. One could perhaps go further and suggest that it is here in what we call values and criteria that we will find those old things and new that enable us to suggest that in the Constitutions we have a viable, contemporary expression of Carmelite spirituality.

Our Values

The Desert

We owe the development mainly, but not exclusively, to the Nijmegen school. It gets behind the notion of asceticism, which developed in the 17th and 18th centuries in treatises on ascetical and mystical theology Though the terminology is not always consistent, we can say that generally asceticism refers to what we do with the help of grace, whereas mysticism is a further development in which the initiative is largely God’s. There is the possibility of some confusion arising from the fact that purification can be both ascetical and mystical, as in the active and passive nights of St. John of the Cross.

The Constitutions leap over this post-Tridentine development and look to a much more ancient tradition, namely the desert. Here I suggest we are reaching back to our primitive heritage that was formed on Mount Carmel. We also touch into a spirituality that belongs much more to the Christian East than to the Latin West. I am agreed in principle with the basic orientation of the doctoral thesis of Elias O’Brien, which attempts to show the Palestinian background of the Rule. Be that as it may, the desert spirituality emerging in Order documents and in studies of the Elijan tradition since 1971 has also a profound contemporary relevance. It is noteworthy where the desert is placed in the Constitutions, that is, just after the historical outline of our origins and at the beginning of the treatment of charism (# 15). The importance of the desert value is that it is seen in some sense to unify and underpin the new expression of our charism. The desert experience is described firstly in Christological terms: it is a commitment to Christ crucified. It is a self-emptying of everything that could block perfect charity. Two Latin phrases from our tradition encapsulate this desert experience: puritas cordis (purity of heart) and vacare Deo (being empty or available for God). This process of purification—though the word is not used leads to a new vision of reality, a fresh and transformed attitude towards the world that we now see with God’s eyes. As our gaze is purified, healed and transformed through contemplation, the desert experience then allows us to be profoundly committed to fraternity and service (# 15).

This desert theme reappears in various places in the Constitutions. It is echoed in the reference to “the long and wearisome journey” of the mystic Elijah (#26 with the resonance of forty-day journey to Horeb in 1 Kgs 19). From Elijah we learn to be “people of the desert” (# 26). The puritas cordis idea is found in Mary being called “the Virgin most pure” (# 27). The fine article on daily conversion to the gospel is perhaps best seen within the perspective of the desert (# 40), as well as the radical following of Christ in the evangelical vows (## 43-44), and specifically the interiorisation of these vows (## 46, 53, 61). The cultivation of silence and of the solitude necessary for prayer to flourish is another desert virtue (# 67), as well as the daily living of the Paschal Mystery (# 78), and living the mysteries of Christ along with Mary (# 86).

The desert is a place in which one journeys without excessive baggage. But we empty ourselves in order to be filled. In the tradition of the East praxis (ascetical effort) is a necessary preparation for theôria (contemplation).

The desert notion is profoundly counter-cultural. Our world respects people for what they have, for what they achieve. The desert experience ultimately makes sense only in the context of love—a love expressed in the crucified Lord and coming to us from him. The desert notion will take much reflection to be fully grasped in our time.

Prayer

Closely allied to the notion of the desert is the challenging gift of prayer. The sixth chapter is a rich and accessible exposition of prayer in our life. It shows the characteristics that we have been noting in these Constitutions: it is traditional, drawing deeply on our heritage_; at the same time it is quite contemporary. We can outline the Constitution’s teaching on prayer by a number of questions.

What is prayer?

There are several converging answers to the question, what is prayer? Prayer is first of all a gift, “the fruit of the action of the Holy Spirit in us and in our lives” (# 64). Prayer is “nourished by the constant search for God” (#66), which is also the highest expression of community life (# 66). Prayer is said to be “the centre of our lives” (# 64)_; it is a celebration of the mysteries of Christ (## 72, 78). It involves, or gives rise to, the practice of the presence of God, which is described as being a Carmelite tradition and as having “become increasingly difficult in these modern times” (# 77. In three splendid articles prayer is described as both a basis for, and an expression of, contemplative life (## 78-80). Finally we are told that prayer is ecclesial_; it is not purely individual, but must be engaged in along with and for others:

It is the Spirit who gives us words when we can find no words;
who leads us to unity with the entire Church...
In the Our Father Jesus taught us to pray in a way that unites heaven and earth.
Thus in our spirituality we integrate our love for the world and our experience of the transcendent (# 64).

What is the place or role of prayer?

The second question asks about the role or place of prayer. Here several themes come together. The Constitutions survey our history and state: “From the beginning, the Carmelite Order has taken on both a life of prayer and an apostolate of prayer” (#, 64). Prayer is an essential part of the life of Carmel and of its mission. The mission of prayer is both praying for others - the ecclesial dimension just mentioned - and an apostolate of prayer to others,, which involves sharing our prayer. Thus the Constitutions recommend:

• centres of spirituality, retreats and of study for members and for others (# 68)_;
• the celebration of the liturgy of the hours with others of the faithful (# 74)
• sharing our values with the Carmelite family (## 28, 106, 109)_;
• study of our spiritual authors (# 83, 31e)_;
• promotion of prayer and the search for God (# 95_; see 98).

Another role for prayer is in building community, especially through the Eucharist (# 70). We are further to make “special efforts to help one another to seek God through prayer that is linked to ordinary life” (# 77). Our communities are to be marked by a spirit of prayer (# 31). Finally, the role of prayer is to enable us

to view the events of our own lives and of the world around us
in the light of God.
Thus our whole life must be deeply contemplative,
So that we may come to see all that happens as if with the eyes of God (# 78).

Two comments might be made at this point. What is described here as a contemplative vision is seen by a mediaeval tradition as an exercise of those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are called wisdom and knowledge, seeing things from God’s perspective and in relation to him.* This faith vision is the ability “to see-through” a transparency, the Durchsichtigkeit of Von Balthasar. We are not therefore primarily dealing with skills of analysis that can be taught, but with an openness or alertness so that we can be taught by the Holy Spirit, who may, of course teach us mediately, that is through others. When we act by word or deed on the basis of what we contemplate or see, then it is appropriate to speak of our prophetic charism, which again is not an acquired or learned skill, but a gift.

What are the main kinds of prayer?

The Constitutions indicate two traditional divisions of prayer: liturgical prayer (##69-76) and

personal prayer (## 77-84). The two are brought together in a succinct article:

As in the primitive Church, as religious we are called
to celebrate together the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours.
Liturgical prayer is the highest form of communal encounter with God, and brings about what it celebrates.
Personal prayer is intimately linked with liturgical prayer;
one flows from the other (# 69).

The articles on the Eucharist are traditional, reaching back to the Rule (## 70-7 1). Though various provinces may have different customs, and particular communities may have particular difficulties, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Constitutions, no less than the Rule, demand a daily coming together for the Eucharist (see ## 70-7 1). Already in the key article on the special moments of community there was a strong statement:

Our life has moments of particular intensity and importance.. .in the shared participation in the Eucharist, through which we become one body, and which is the source and the summit of our lives, and therefore the sacrament of brotherhood (# 31a).

This is a sensitive area among some of our younger members. We must remember that our Rule was unusual for its time in its emphasis on daily Mass. The Rule of Benedict has eleven chapters (8-18) on the Liturgy of the Hours, but is rather silent on the Eucharist. Again, unlike modern congregations that have a deep sense of devotion to, and practices concerning the Eucharistic presence, our tradition has the Mass as its Eucharistic focus. But we cannot presume that these essential values are self-evident to people today. By example, by instruction and by the excellence of our liturgy, we have to help our younger members to grasp this core value of our life. The Constitutions add a fine note when they ask that:

In addition to a diligent preparation of our liturgies,
we must grow in love for liturgy and in our concern for its renewal.
In this way, we hope to deepen our contemplative participation
in the mystery which we celebrate (# 71).

This notion of love of the liturgy will be a helpful corrective for those whose tradition was excessively juridical, seeing liturgy as an obligation_; it was not only the work of God (opus Dei) but the burden of God (onus Dei).

The articles on the Liturgy of the Hours basically incorporate the vision of the revised breviary, from which it quotes (see ## 72-73). It is recommended that we celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours with the faithful (# 74). Here the same problem can arise that we have noted in the case of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Hours is not a self-evident value_; people need to be led to an understanding of it. The fine articles 72 and 73 could be an excellent introduction to this prayer.

The common celebration of liturgy has deep roots in our psyche. Few members of modern congregations would find it meaningful for two persons to gather several times a day for communal prayer.

Before moving to personal prayer, we should note the two articles on the sacrament of reconciliation (## 75-76). The emphasis on conversion throughout the Constitutions, and the need for reconciliation in community and in society, make these important reminders.

There was much discussion about the title “Personal Prayer” (## 77-84). Expressions like “meditation,” “private prayer were felt to be misleading or to have too much acquired or negative baggage. The treatment is traditional, incorporating important elements of our tradition. One might note a few points:

• prayer should be integrated into daily life (# 79)_;
• it should lead to authenticity (# 81)_;
• it is about the search for God (# 77)_;
• the community should support the prayer-life of the individual (# 77, see 33)_;
• prayer is of great assistance in developing a contemplative stance towards the world (## 78-80);
• prayer needs to be nourished by the reading of spiritual books, especially Carmelite authors (# 83)_;
• the ideal of the Lord “pray at all times” is inculcated (Lk 18:1_; # 84).

What about new forms and in particular Lectio divina?

New forms of prayer are commended in the Constitutions and in particular, Lectio divina. This method straddles both community and individual prayer.

The Lectio divina has its roots in the patristic style of reading scripture found in the West in the Benedictine and monastic traditions. It was formalised about 1180 by an Italian monk, Guido II in a letter sometimes called The Ladder of Prayer. It is found in all circles in the medieval period_; the 14th century Cloud of Unknowing describes it. By the time of the Reformation it had faded a bit from sight and is not explicit in Teresa. She had to learn a somewhat similar Prayer of Recollection,** in which one goes inwards to listen, to speak and to gaze, which are three of the four elements of the Lectio. It would seem that even before the Reformation, we had to an extent lost contact with our authentic tradition, and we became eclectic, taking elements from other schools, including the Ignatian. The lectio made a comeback in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, as it emerged from the Benedictine tradition, which had preserved it. It began to come into Carmelite writing in the mid-1980s, though a new emphasis on the Word of God in communities was discernible in meetings from about 1972.

The statements of the Constitutions on the Lectio are really very strong:

• prayerful listening to the Word is an important feature of community life (# 31c)_;
• lectio divina is a support for a variety of prayer forms (# 66)_;
• daily lectio is to be made by all (# 82, § 1 — quote)_;
• common lectio is to be practised regularly (# 82, §2 - quote).

Notes

* See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae 1-2ae, q. 68. ** The Way of Perfection, chs. 26-29.

Bartholomew Quinn, O.Carm.

It is often true to say that the present is deeply rooted in the past; it is certainly very true to say so of the Carmelite Rite as we have it today. For that body of liturgical books — the Missal, the Breviary, the Ceremonial, and the rest — which directs the liturgical life of the Order, has not remained unchanged in the course of centuries. Rather, the Carmelite Rite as we know it today is the result of seven centuries of development, modification and revision. So it is, that, if we wish to understand and appreciate the present state of the Carmelite Rite, we must follow it in its history. And surely, to know, love and appreciate the Rite of our Order is a duty incumbent upon every Carmelite; for our Rite is a family treasure, an heirloom that has ever been dear to the hearts of Carmelites in centuries past, and which is now handed on to us to be preserved and cherished. And so, this article on the history of the Carmelite Rite has been written in the hope that it may be of some assistance to our Carmelite Sisters who wish to know and appreciate better the Rite of their Order. Needless to say, the subject matter contained in this article is not original. On the contrary, it is almost entirely dependent on the scholarly research of Fr. Gabriel Wessels, O. Carm., Fr. Benedict Zimmerman, O.C.D., and Fr. Augustine Forcadell, O. Caren.; but the fact that for many of our Sisters Latin works are of little use seemed to justify an English article on the Carmelite Rite.

I. The Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, the first official liturgy of the Carmelites

The one thing that almost everyone knows about the Carmelite Rite is that it is somehow derived from the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre. An examination of a passage in the Rule given by St. Albert, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to the hermits on Mt. Carmel about 120o, explains just how the Carmelites came to adopt this ancient liturgy. In his chapter on the Divine Office, St. Albert prescribes: " Let those who know how to read and to recite the Psalms, say, for each of the Canonical Hours, those Psalms which, by the institution of the Holy Fathers and the approved usage of the Church, have been assigned to the various hours".

Thus, the norm which the Rule imposed upon the Carmelites for the direction of their liturgical life was " the approved usage of the Church ". For the Carmelites, this "approved usage of the Church " meant the liturgical uses of the ecclesiastical province in which they dwelt, namely, the province of Jerusalem; and since the metropolitan church of this province or diocese was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Carmelites, in following the prescript of their Rule, received the liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre. This conclusion is confirmed by some of the most ancient Carmelite liturgical documents we possess. Thus, in the Ordinal (1) written by Sibert de Beka at the beginning of the fourteenth century, we read: " Here begins the Ordinal of the Brothers of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, extracted and drawn from the approved usage of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, within the boundaries of which the Order of the aforesaid Brothers had its beginning ". Again, the Constitutions of the Chapter of Barcelona (2324) prescribe: "Let them celebrate the Divine Office uniformly, according to the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre ". Furthermore, the fact that the Carmelite liturgy is derived from the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre is confirmed by a thorough analysis of the contents of both Rites. Thus, the first step in our study of the history of Carmelite liturgy will be to examine the Rite imposed upon the Carmelites by their Rule, namely, the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre.

II. The Rite of the Holy Sepulchre: a. Gallican Liturgy

It is natural, when hearing the words, "Rite of the Holy Sepulchre", "Rite of the Church of Jerusalem ", to imagine an Oriental liturgy. However, this is an altogether false concept, for the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre was an almost purely Gallican liturgy (a term we shall explain later), as we know from both external and internal testimony.

For outside evidence of this fact, we have the testimony of William of Tyre (2) who, writing about Godfrey de Bouillon, describes the birth of the Holy Sepulchre liturgy: "Thus, a few days after he had received the kingdom, religious man as he was, he began to offer to the Lord the first fruits of .his solicitude for the matters that concern the splendour of the house of God. For he at once established Canons in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and in the Temple of the Lord, preserving the order and arrangement which the wealthy and extensive churches beyond the mountains (3), founded by pious rulers, observe ". In this passage which gives us the key to the beginning of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, the author is speaking of the capture of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099. Godfrey de Bouillon was a French Duke who played a prominent part in the crusade which culminated in the taking of Jerusalem on July i5th, 1099. Godfrey was placed in charge of the newly-formed, but short-lived kingdom of Jerusalem, although he refused the title of king. The important thing for us to notice is the fact that the Canons whom Godfrey established to perform the divine services in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and who were, for the most part, of French nationality, continued to observe in their duties, the liturgical uses of the churches of Gaul.

This fact is confirmed by internal evidence, by a comparison of the contents of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre and the Rites of the churches of Gaul. From such an analysis, it seems that the liturgy of the church of Paris (4) exercised the greatest influence on the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre; for, besides various ceremonies identical in both Rites, we find many Parisian Saints in the Jerusalem calendar, and it is interesting to note that there are Parisian names among the lists of the first Canons of the Holy Sepulchre. However, the Church of Paris was not the only Gallican church to influence the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre; on the contrary, we find in this Rite sequences and tropes (5) originating from Nevers, as well as Saints from the calendar of various other churches of Gaul, such as Angers, Rheims, and Limoges. Moreover, from the similarity between the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre and that of the church of Salisbury in England (the Sarum Rite, as it is called), it would seem that the church of Rouen in Normandy, from which the Sarum Rite originated, exercised a considerable influence on the liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre. Thus, we may designate the twelfth century Rite of the Holy Sepulchre as a typical medieval Gallican liturgy, a statement which calls for a rather long, but necessary, explanation of the term " Gallican liturgy ".

According to an ancient philosophical method, we may begin by saying what we do not mean by the term "Gallican liturgy". When we use these words we do not mean the ancient Gallican Rite in use until the eighth century, no more than we wish to signify the ancient Rite of Rome when we speak of the " Roman Rite ". Concerning the origin and history of these two ancient liturgies there is very little known, and liturgical historians propose various theories about them. At all events, we can describe the ancient Gallican Rite, or rather the Gallican family of Rites, as the liturgical usage employed in Gaul and the surrounding territories up to the time of Charlemagne, i.e., the eighth century; while the ancient Roman Rite may be considered as the liturgy in use at Rome until the tenth century, and perhaps even later.

Historical circumstances before the eighth century did not favor a healthy development and preservation of the ancient Gallican liturgy. In the first place, there was no outstandingly predominant church in Gaul, no authority sufficiently powerful to direct the development of the Gallican Rite, to prevent the entrance of abuses that spring up so easily and severely damage the spirit of the liturgy. (We must remember that, in these ages, the rigid liturgical legislation which we take for granted today was unheard of, and that, consequently, the liturgy was far more flexible and changeable than it is today). Because of •this lack of central authority, endless variations sprang up in different regions, with the result that, as time went on, the widespread lack of uniformity in the non-Roman liturgies demanded that something should be done to remedy the situation.

At the same time, circumstances favored the diffusion of the liturgy in use at Rome; as has always been the case, Rome was a center for pilgrims from all parts of Europe, and many of these pilgrims, impressed by the manner in which the divine services were carried out at Rome, and wishing to imitate it, took back with them to their own countries masters of liturgy and chant. Moreover, many rulers, who, for religious and political motives, wished to be in closer union with the Holy See, strove to promote the adoption of the Roman liturgy, while the Pontiffs themselves were eager that liturgical uniformity should be instrumental in safeguarding uniformity in faith and discipline. All these circumstances paved the way for the changes that began under Charlemagne. Anxious to remedy the widespread lack of liturgical uniformity in his kingdom, Charlemagne obtained from Pope Adrian (who reigned from 771 till 79,5) a Gregorian Sacramentary, a book which contained the authentic Roman liturgy as it was being used in Rome at the time of Adrian. At the command of Charlemagne, Alcuin, who was master of the Palatine school at the court of the Emperor, provided a supplement for the Gregorian Sacramentary, in which he prescribed many additions from various Gallican sources, in order to adapt the Sacramentary to the character of the Gallican peoples. The result was a compromise between the ancient Roman and Gallican liturgies, a certain " Gallico-Roman " liturgy. This liturgy became extraordinarily popular, and all over Gaul and the surrounding territories it succeeded in supplanting the ancient Gallican usages; its popularity invaded even Rome itself, and eventually it came to take the place of the old Roman usage, and became the basis of the Roman Rite used by the Latin Church today.

However, the Gallico-Roman liturgy did not succeed in establishing complete uniformity, for local varieties soon began to spring up. This may seem strange to us, but we must remember that in the Middle Ages the liturgy was not governed by hard and fast rules, but was rather the spontaneous expression of the devotion of the people. And so it was that there arose such Rites as those of Rouen, Sarum, Cologne, Paris and many others, — Rites, which, while they remained fundamentally the same as the Gallico-Roman liturgy as it was used in Rome, nevertheless added to it many accidental, local varieties. And it is in this sense that we speak today of the Roman Rite and the Gallican Rite; namely, by the Roman Rite we mean the Gallico-Roman Rite as it was observed at Rome; by the Gallican Rite, we mean this same Rite as it was observed in the churches of Gaul.

Thus, the conclusion we came to above, namely, that the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, established as it was by French Canons after the crusade, was a typical Galilean liturgy, should now have more meaning. However, in the course of time, this Rite at Jerusalem was, in turn, embellished by certain local influences. This was quite an understandable development, for, when the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre celebrated in their Divine Office the mysteries of Christ, of His Passion, Death and Resurrection, they were doing so in the very places where these Mysteries were first enacted. So it was natural that this fact should encourage the Canons to celebrate the Mysteries of our Redemption — and more especially the Resurrection — with great solemnity. Hence the Canons instituted various processions and other ceremonies on the principal feasts of Our Lord, such as Easter, the Ascension, etc. Two of the processions proper to the Carmelite Rite, and still prescribed in our Missal, namely, the processions before the Conventual Mass on the feasts of the Ascension and the Assumption, are precious relics of the solemnities performed by the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre in the very places where these Mysteries actually occurred. Suffice it to mention this fact in passing, as we hope to speak about it more fully later.

Throughout the liturgical year, the presence of Christ's tomb in the Church where the Canons held their choir services, influenced the structure of the Divine Office. Thus, every Saturday from Easter to Advent, a solemn procession to the chapel of the Resurrection was held; and on Sundays (unless it was a great feast or the Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension), a Solemn Mass of the Resurrection was sung, the proper Mass of the Sunday being sung with less solemnity earlier in the morning. Moreover, from the Sunday after the Octave of Pentecost, the gospel of the Resurrection was read during Matins of the Divine Office, and, finally, on the last Sunday before Advent, a Solemn Commemoration of the Resurrection was celebrated with a proper office and a major rite. From this solemn devotion to the Resurrection, we retain in our Breviary the commemoration of the Resurrection, Et valde mane, which we recite at Lauds on certain Sundays of the year.

Apart from these solemnities, introduced by the Canons because of the sacred memories attached to the holy places, the Latin liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre does not seem to have undergone any influence of the Oriental liturgies. This was natural enough, for the Oriental and the Latin minds were entirely diverse, and there could be little in the Oriental liturgies, expressions of Oriental sentiments and devotion, that would appeal to the Latin mind of the French Canons. And so, to sum up all that we have said about the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, the liturgy imposed upon the Carmelites by the Rule, we may describe it as a typical Gallico-Roman liturgy, established in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the French Canons who accompanied Godfrey de Bouillon's crusade, and enriched by devotions and ceremonies that naturally sprang up in the holy places where the Mysteries of the Redemption had been performed.

It is interesting to trace the subsequent history of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre. When some of the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre returned to Europe, they established their Rite in many places. Thus — as Papebroch, the seventeenth century writer of the Acta Sanctorum, observes — they gave back to Europe what they had received from it. According to the same author, the diocese of Utrecht (in Holland) alone had twenty four houses of these Canons of the Holy Sepulchre and seven houses of their nuns. Likewise, for many years the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre flourished among the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, in the islands of Rhodes and Malta. Today, however, our Carmelite Rite is the only one that preserves vestiges of the ancient liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, which, in spite of the many changes and developments it underwent in the hands of the Carmelites, remained the underlying foundation of the Carmelite Rite.

III. The Holy Sepulchre Liturgy on Mount Carmel

It is natural to expect that the hermits of Mount Carmel, when they adopted the liturgy of the Holy Sepulchre, would be unable to carry it out in its entirety. They were men accustomed to a simple life of solitude and silence, and moreover, their hermitages on Mt. Carmel were not equipped with all the facilities for liturgical splendor that were available in the large Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. The original Albertine Rule explicitly prescribed at least one liturgical assembly each day: " An oratory sufficiently large, shall be constructed in the middle of the cells, where you shall gather early each day to hear Mass, where this can be conveniently done " (Chapter 8). The recitation of the Divine Office was also prescribed: "Let those who know how to read and to recite the Psalms, say, for each of the Canonical Hours, those Psalms which, by the institution of the Holy Fathers and the approved usage of the Church, have been assigned to the various hours " (Chapter 6). But whether this recitation was choral or not, we are not certain. According to the Chronicon of WilLiam of Sanvico, the Divine Office was being recited chorally on Mount Carmel in 1254, and it would seem from Chapter 14 of St. Albert's Rule, where Vespers and Terce are assigned as the beginning and the end of strict silence, that choral recitation was the custom from the beginning. Thus, in the lack of more definite information concerning the liturgical life of the hermits on Mount Carmel, we may state as probable that, while they accepted the general outline of the Holy Sepulchre liturgy, they introduced whatever modifications were necessary to adapt this liturgy to the circumstances of their life.

IV. The Carmelite Liturgy in Europe

As is well known, the thirteenth century was, for the Order of Carmel, a century of great change, a period when the Order underwent a transformation which had tremendous effects upon its whole life, and, naturally, upon its liturgy also. This great change was the transplanting of the Order from Palestine to Europe. The increasing danger of Saracen persecution in the first half of the thirteenth century had prompted some of the Carmelite hermits to leave the Holy Land, and in the Chapter held on Mount Carmel in 1237, general migration wa3 permitted. How quickly this migration took place we cannot judge, but we have definite evidence that Carmelites settled at Valenciennes in 1235; moreover, at the time of the Aylesford Chapter in 1247, the Order had houses in England, France, Sicily and Cyprus, besides the older hermitages in various parts of Palestine. Thus, the Order suddenly found itself invested with a certain international character, and placed in circumstances which demanded radical changes. The simple, inexpensive life of the Palestinian hermitages was no longer possible in the populous regions of Western Europe, and the Carmelites found themselves face to face with the fact that they must adopt some way of life that would bring concrete support. Given the conditions of the Europe of that age, the one way of life that presented itself as the obvious pattern according to which the Carmelite hermits must adapt themselves, was the way of life of the mendicant friars. Everything pointed to this. Already in 1229 Gregory IX had established among the Carmelites the mendicant principle of poverty, forbidding them the limited rights of possession enjoyed by the monastic communities. Moreover, when the Carmelites came to Europe, the mendicant Orders were enjoying an extraordinary popularity; the Dominicans, especially, were flourishing, and from 1239, this Order possessed a complete, detailed set of constitutions, fully describing the spirit and administration of their life; in 1256, the liturgy of the same Order had been carefully revised and stabilized by the famous Dominican liturgist, Humbert of Romans (a place near Valence, France). Such efficient organization in administration and liturgy must have attracted the admiration of the Carmelites, new, as they were, to conditions in Europe, and we are not surprised to find a marked mendicant, and especially Dominican, influence on the life and liturgy of the thirteenth century Carmelites. The part played by the mendicant Orders in the formation of the general pattern of Carmelite life in Europe is well known, and is especially demonstrated by a comparison between the early Carmelite constitutions and those of the Dominicans; such an analysis shows that the Carmelite constitutions, while leaving out everything that was purely Dominican, accepted the framework, the machinery of administration of the Dominican constitutions as a guiding model. But what is not so well understood is the influence of the Dominicans on the liturgy of the Carmelites. As we have said, circumstances must have made the Carmelites regard the well-established Dominicans somewhat as objects of admiration and imitation, not only in the general structure of their life, but in their liturgical usages also. And it would seem from the thirteenth century Carmelite Ordinal, the only one still preserved, that in some parts of the Carmelite Order at least, the liturgy of the Friars Preachers exercised a considerable influence on the Carmelite liturgy of the thirteenth century.

A manuscript of this thirteenth century Carmelite Ordinal was accidentally discovered by Fr. Patrick of St. Joseph, O.C.D., in Trinity College, Dublin, and was published by him in 1912. In his preface to the Ordinal, Fr. Patrick makes some odd statements about its contents; on the principle that every Ordinal is a revision of a previous one (just as the thirteenth century Ordinal was to be replaced by the Ordinal of Sibert de Beka), Fr. Patrick claims that the thirteenth century Carmelite Ordinal must be merely a revision of an older one, and thus he wishes to see in the thirteenth century Ordinal traces of the ancient liturgy used by the sons of the prophets on Mount Carmel. However, an analysis of the contents of this Ordinal proves such claims to be impossible, and reveals that the rubrics have been taken almost word for word from the Dominican Ordinal. Often whole sentences and paragraphs have been adopted without change, so that we can say that the liturgy embodied in this thirteenth century Carmelite Ordinal is almost entirely conformed to the Dominican liturgy. Thus, the thirteenth century Carmelite Ordinal represents a corruption, a departure from the official Carmelite liturgy, the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre; therefore, says Fr. Wessels, this Ordinal is of no use for the study of the Carmelite Rite, namely, the ceremonies, etc., of the authentic Carmelite liturgy, but is merely helpful in studying the history of the vicissitudes through which that Rite has passed. We do not know whether our thirteenth century Ordinal was ever officially approved by the Order, nor can we determine how widely it was used. Whatever the value of this Ordinal was in the thirteenth century, and however widely used was the fundamentally Dominican liturgy contained in it, in the following century it was completely replaced by the Ordinal of Sibert de Beka. This great Carmelite, seeing that his Order, in its liturgical uses, had gone astray from the true path, as one writer expresses it, set about the task of restoring the true Carmelite liturgy, expunged of Dominican encroachments. The result of his work was the monumental Ordinal which has ever since remained the principal font of Carmelite liturgy. This Ordinal will be the subject of our next article.

Bartholomew Quinn, O.Carm.

Just as men consider it an honor to have others wear their livery, so Our Blessed Lady loves to see her clients wearing her Scapular, as a sign that they have consecrated themselves to her service, and that they form a part of her retinue. The wicked and the indifferent ridicule this devotion, but Holy Mother Church has approved it by innumerable Bulls and Indulgences. Happy are they who, devoid of human respect, wear the Scapular with devotion and perseverance until death. Our Blessed Lady will recognize them as her devoted clients, and will deliver them from eternal damnation, indeed from temporal harm, and even from the pains of Purgatory.

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI

*In Spirit of Carmel No. 1 - 1951

James Pilkington, O. Carm.

«The age in which. we live demands that we try by every possible means to turn. the attention of the People once more to the Third Order and promote it everywhere from day to day.»

Most Reverend HILARY M. DOSWALD, O.Carm. (Elian letters, 1940)

The foundation of the Mendicant Orders in the Middle Ages had a profound influence on the faithful — at that time the old monastic spirit flourished in the very midst of the people. Hence in this truly religious age, there were many who were attracted by the fervour of the Mendicants and wished to live according to the spirit of such Orders. But not all could embrace the religious life and indeed not all desired to do so. The urgent need was a form of life which would enable the faithful to live in the world according to the spirit of religious life. Thus, the various religious, their own souls burning with love of God and love for their Orders, and anxious, too, that the devout faithful should also burn with the same love, organized a movement known as the Third Order. It was by no means a new movement, as 'before the establishment of the Mendicant Orders, a similar society, founded by St. Norbert, already functioned in connection with the Premonstratensians. However in the thirteenth century the movement received a determined and precise character, mainly through the inspired zeal of St. Francis.

The Third Order of St. Francis received approbation from Gregory IX as early as 1228, while the Militia of Jesus Christ, which later developed into the Third Order of St. Dominic, was mentioned in a Bull of the same Pope in 1227. The canonical approbation of our own Third Order of Carmel, however, was not received until much later; this was in 1452, when, during the generalship of Blessed John Soreth, Nicholas V granted the Bull Cum Nulla. Nevertheless, it would not be understandable if during the two centuries that preceded the official approval there existed no connection between the Carmelites and the faithful. And, intact, we are certain that such bonds of union between the laity and the religious did exist almost immediately after the arrival of the Order from the East. They may be considered under two titles, namely, Confraternities and Affiliations. Since both not only acted as substitutes for the Third Order but also formed the foundations for its later establish-merit, they must be considered here

Affiliation

In general, affiliation may be described as a participation in the spiritual riches^- of the Order, which is granted to the laity for donations they have made. Such a form of participation arose from the very nature of the origin and existence of the monasteries which were almost entirely dependent on the assistance of others for their preservation. The first official mention of affiliation to the Order of Carmel is in the Acts of the General Chapter of 141 but it certainly existed before that time. In the Ordinal of 1270, for instance, there is an extensive description of " The Manner of Admission to Benefits ". Again, the extent of this affiliation varied, as not only one convent accepted the bonds of affiliation but sometimes a whole province or even the whole Order; according to this division, the "letters of confraternity " granting affiliation to the benefactor were issued by the local Prior, the Provincial or the General.

From examination of documents, it is clear that the number of Familiars or those who had received letters of confraternity, was very great in the fourteenth century, for in some cases whole groups or associations were joined to the Order in this manner. As early as 1300 there existed at Venice the Confraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel while at Valencia in 1361 the Confraternity of the Weavers was formed.

Also, in the fifteenth century we notice an intimate connection between the Carmelites and a group of Merchants at Frankfurt; the main explanation of this union seems to be the desire of the Merchants to participate in the spiritual treasures of the religious. The following quotation from the historical thesis of Dr. Otto Fellinger deals with this question of the bond between the religious and the Merchants: " The ardent wish of the Merchants to obtain a memento after their death and to find heavenly rest for their souls was satisfied by means of alms and donations to the convent... and especially by membership in the Confraternity of the Convent, which enabled them to participate not only in the many Masses which had to be celebrated according to the Rule of the Confraternity but also in the good works of the entire Order ". It is clear, however, that although these associations participated in the Order's good works, there was no obligation for them to live according to the Carmelite spirit. Hence, although they were often called Confraternities they must be carefully distinguished from the Confraternities properly so called which also flourished during these centuries. The Confraternity was a much closer bond of union with the Order and is more important for two reasons — first, because during the fifteenth century, members were obliged to wear the Scapular and hence it developed into our Scapular Confraternity; and secondly, since members were then provided with a rule of life which was definitely Carmelite in its spirit, the Confraternity more than any other Carmelite society of that period, acted as a substitute for the Third Order.

Confraternities

At the time of Tertullian, Confraternities already existed in the East but their exclusive aim was charity towards the poor and the infirm. They were not introduced into the West until much later and their purpose and character were very different. St. Boniface may be considered their true founder in the West as he established them on a firm footing under their present essential characteristic, namely, a spiritual tie or relationship. For, in his difficult labor, St. Boniface had established a spiritual bond with the English Bishops and the Abbot of Monte Cassino by which they would pray for the success of his work and he, in turn, would pray for them. From this period, such Confraternities between missionaries and convents, or in some cases between convents themselves, became very popular — their purpose is excellently summed up in the title by which they were frequently known, i.e., Communicatio bonorum operum, an interchange of good works. With the coming of the Mendicant Orders, the Confraternities, while retaining the essential element of a spiritual bond, changed to a large extent their former purpose. They now developed into a group of people who practiced a definite devotion — these groups were attached to a Church and received special direction.

Many Carmelite Confraternities are traced to this period, but since all enjoyed the same fundamental privileges and spirit of life, we may speak of them under the inclusive title " Confraternity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel ". The object of the Confraternity was to give the faithful a better opportunity to live according to Christian perfection and more particularly to pursue this end by means of the Carmelite spirit — the distinctive note being a devout love and sincere imitation of Mary, the Splendor of Carmel. We must note here, however, that before the middle of the fifteenth century, the Scapular did not hold the place of importance it enjoys in our modern Confraternity. It was not until the time of Blessed John Soreth that the Scapular began to attract the faithful to the Order; and during the time of Henricus Sylvius, who was General towards the end of the sixteenth century, it eventually became the very reason of the Confraternity's existence. This fact, that devotion to Mary and not the Scapular, was the most important  reason for membership within our Confraternity in the early centuries of its existence, is aptly expressed in several pictures of the time. Our Lady is frequently represented with her mantle outspread, covering with motherly tenderness both Carmelites and faithful, probably members of the Confraternity or Familiares — yet in most of these pictures, the Scapular is absent. Characteristic of this point is the Mantle-Madonna preserved at Pordenone, where Our Lady is clearly represented as the Mother and Protectress of her " Marian family ". Also in the statutes of the Confraternity of Ferrara, 1432, this intimate connection between the Carmelite Religious and the laity under the protection of the "Blessed Virgin of Carmel " is evident.

These Carmelite Confraternities were probably attached to most of our Carmelite churches, where they held their meetings, and were directed and regulated by Carmelite priests. Their rule of life, in which the spirit of the First Order is apparent, may be judged from the statutes of the Confraternity of Ferrara, already mentioned. Other Confraternities already existing at an early date were at Bologna Venice (1300), and, more important, at Florence. The activities of this last named Confraternity between the years 1280.1296 are recorded in a bock re-published at Bologna in 1867. From this document it is clear that the Confraternity was already flourishing when the record of the activitcs began, so we may conclude that it was established very soon after the Scapular Vision in 1251 — which event assured the Order of prosperity in the West.

Soon after the establishment of the Carmelites among the Mendicant Orders, then, they extended their influence beyond the Order itself, forming, as did the other Orders, various associations whose aim was to encourage the practice of the spiritual life among the faithful. Indeed, Orders are to be the more venerated and esteemed because of this deep love and desire for perfection which their own moving example produced among the faithful. The Spirit of Carmel is the Spirit of Mary and in this truth there is contained the great attraction which drew the laity of the Middle Ages to Mary's chosen Order. May we of today witness a revival of this interest among the faithful; may we do all within our power to cultivate the Spirit of Carmel first within ourselves and then among others. What more powerful means have we to establish once more the Reign of Mary on earth than by uniting under the banner of the Queen of Carmel!

James Pilkington, O. Carm.

In Spirit of Carmel no.1 - 1951

Thomas Mcginnis, O.Carm.

We often read in books and hear in lectures about the various schools of spirituality within the Catholic Church. We are told, for example, that the Dominican school is distinguished by its emphasis upon the intellectual element in the spiritual life; the Franciscan school, by a similar emphasis upon the affective element. The existence of such schools may at first sight appear strange; yet serious consideration will tell us that the oft-quoted words of St. Augustine apply not only to individual souls, but as well to individual religious orders, individual pious congregations, individual nations: “some follow this path; others, another”. Clearly, it is not the end of the spiritual life which differentiates the various schools of spirituality, for all spiritual life tends to the goal of the beatific vision of God for all eternity. What does differentiate the various schools of spirituality is the means of attaining that end: not that each school uses one or more means to the exclusion of all others, but each school places special emphasis upon one means and employs all the other means in varying proportions. Hence, a one-word description of Cistercian spirituality might be “Silence” ; of Benedictine spirituality, “Liturgy” ; still no one should think for an instant that the Cistercian school neglects the liturgy or that the Benedictine school disregards silence, just as no one should think that the Cistercian and Benedictine schools have exactly the same conception of liturgy and silence. To know the spirituality of a particular school, therefore, and such knowledge is necessary if we wish to live according to the spirit of such a school careful study is required: study not only of the teachings of its writers and masters, but study of the lives of its saints and holy members, study of its life as it influences its present day members. One word descriptions may be easy to remember, but they may also be misleading.

It is our present aim to discuss Carmelite spirituality. We intend to present a series of articles on this particular form or school of spirituality, because the depth and richness of the school cannot be examined in a few pages. In our study we shall present the traditional and authentic teaching of this school as it is interpreted currently by the Order's most outstanding scholars, and as it has been lived by the Order's most outstanding saints. In accordance with the principle stated above, we must say first of all that Carmelite spirituality does not differ from any other spirituality as far as its end is concerned. The end to which Carmelite spirituality tends is the end to which all spirituality tends; namely, perfect and everlasting union with God. Carmelite spirituality is distinguished, in the first place, by the main means which it uses to reach such union, and, secondarily, by the varying emphasis which it places upon all the other general means to true and perfect holiness. In this article we intend to examine this primary means; in later articles, the subordinate ones.

The Carmelite way of spirituality is the mystical way; the primary means which the Carmelite school proposes to reach the end of union with God is mysticism; the Carmelite vocation, as it is generally called, is the vocation to the mystical life.

But before examining in detail the Carmelite vocation, namely the call to the mystical life, the ultimate end to which the Carmelite, and every other earnest interior soul, must tend union with God — needs some explanation. We find the explanation in that monumental work by St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel. In the fifth chapter of the second book of the Ascent, the Saint writes: “In order to understand what is meant by this union, it must be known that God dwells and is present substantially in every soul, even in that of the greatest sinner in the world. And this kind of union is ever wrought between God and all the creatures, for in it He is preserving their being; so that if union of this kind were to fail them, they would at once be-come annihilated and would cease to be. And so, when we speak of union of the soul with God, we speak not of this substantial union which is continually being wrought, but of the union and transformation of the soul with God, which is not being wrought continually, but only when there exists that likeness that comes from love; we shall therefore term this the union of likeness, even as that other union (i.e., of God with all creatures) is called substantial or essential. The one (substantial union) is natural; the other supernatural. And the latter comes to pass when the two wills—namely that of the soul and that of God—are conformed together in one, and there is naught in the one that is repugnant to the other. And thus, when the soul rids itself totally of that which is repugnant to the Divine will and conforms not with it, it is transformed in God through love.”

In this same chapter, the Saint develops that notion of the soul's purification in which it “rids itself totally of that which is repugnant to the Divine will” and explains it. He writes: “This is to be understood of that which is repugnant, not only in action, but likewise in habit, so that not only do the voluntary acts of imperfection cease, but the habits of those imperfections, whatever they be, are annihilated. And since no creature whatsoever, or any of its actions or abilities, can conform or can attain to that which is God, therefore must the soul be stripped of all things created, of its own actions and abilities—namely, of its understanding, liking and feeling—so that, when all that is unlike God and unconformed to Him is cast out, the soul may receive the likeness of God; and nothing will then remain in it that is not the will of God and it will thus be transformed in God. Wherefore God communicates Himself most to that soul that has progressed farthest in love; namely, that has its will in closest conformity with the will of God. And the soul that has attained complete conformity and likeness of will is totally united and transformed in God supernaturally. Wherefore the more completely a soul is wrapped up in creatures and in its own abilities, by habit and affection, the less preparation it has for such union; for it gives not God a complete opportunity to transform it super-naturally. The soul, then, needs only to strip itself of these natural dissimilarities and contrarieties, so that God may communicate Himself to it supernaturally, by means of grace”. Hence, St. John concludes, “the preparation of the soul for this union ...is not that it should understand or experience or feel or imagine anything, concerning either God or all else, but that it should have purity and love that is, perfect resignation and detachment from everything for God's sake alone”.

In reference to this purification and preparation of the soul for union with God, we must cite the words found in the Book of the Institution of the First Monks a book, the identity of whose author, to be sure, has been challenged, but whose position as the most venerable evidence of the Carmelite spiritual tradition remains secure. For “to place that in doubt”, says Fr. Patrick of St. Joseph, O.C.D., “would be to show a singular ignorance of the substance of this sublime work; indeed, in the eyes of those for whose instruction it was written, the documentary and purely historical value of the book has ever been of secondary importance”. In the Institution is outlined the spirit of the Carmelite life and the end to which the Carmelite must tend, thus: “This (the Carmelite) life has a twofold end. The one we acquire by our own work and by the practice of the virtues, with the constant aid of divine grace. This end is to offer to God a heart free from all stain of sin; and this end is attained ...when we are hidden in that love of which Wisdom says: Charity covereth all sins God, wanting Elias to attain this end, said to him: Hide thyself by the torrent of Carith”. It should be noted that this “end” to which the Institution refers is not an end, in itself, but only insofar as it is a necessary preparation for man's final end. We can see, then, how clearly all Carmelites are bound to tend towards intimate union with God, since the preparation for this union is one of the main objectives of the Carmelite life.

Still using St. John of the Cross as our guide, we find another reference to the preparative purification of the soul in The Dark Night of the Soul. In the third chapter of the first book of the Night we read: “However greatly the soul itself labors, it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not ... in the way and manner that we have to describe”. A superficial reading of this text might lead us to claim that the Saint contradicts himself. For did he not say in the Ascent that the soul need only rid itself of all that is opposed to God in order to attain to union with Him? Yet here he seems to say that the soul is unable to attain such union. The solution of the problem is this: in the Ascent the Saint spoke of that degree of union with God which is dependent on the action of the soul, which is acquired by our own efforts, in other words, together with the habitual aid of grace. In the Dark Night of the Soul he tells us that there is a degree of union with God a degree possible even in this life—which is beyond the industry of the soul to attain. It is a degree of union to which God calls generous interior souls who have attained the lower degree of union by their own personal activity. God calls the soul, and if the soul will not resist His grace, He leads it strongly yet gently through the so-called “purgatory before death” or the passive purification of sense and spirit, usually referred to as the dark night. A glance at the nature of these purifications will enable us both to see their necessity and to appreciate the lofty and intimate union with God to which they lead.

The generous interior soul in the beginning of its spiritual life is commonly blessed by God with sensible consolations. These consolations are, indeed, momentarily useful, but they easily become an obstacle to the working of God's grace when they are sought for their own sake with a kind of spiritual gluttony. Hence the necessity of a passive purification of the senses which places the soul in sensible dryness and leads it to a spiritual life more disengaged from sense, imagination, and reasoning. By the gifts of the Holy Ghost, particularly by the gift of knowledge, the soul receives an intuitive and experimental knowledge of the vanity of earthly things and of the limitless grandeur of God. To resist temptations which God often permits the soul to suffer at this time, very meritorious, if not heroic acts of the virtues of chastity and patience must be made. It sometimes happens that the soul undergoes such a passive purification when deprived of a loved one by death or estrangement, when beset by illness or family trials, and so on.

This passive purification has for its object to subordinate our lower sense faculties to our superior spiritual faculties of intellect and will. But these higher faculties, too, need a very profound passive purification. As St. John of the Cross has written, even after the purification of sense “there still remains in the spirit the stains of the old man, although the spirit thinks not that this is so, neither can it perceive them; if these stains be not removed with the soap and strong lye of the purgation of this night, the spirit will be unable to come to the purity of Divine union”. Even those who have advanced thus far in the spiritual life, therefore, still unconsciously seek themselves, often to a great degree: they are very much attached to their own judgment, to their own particular way of doing good. They are, in a word, too sure of themselves. “The devil”, writes St. John, “is also accustomed, in this state, to fill (these souls) with presumption and pride... and these imperfections are the more incurable because such souls mistake them for spiritual perfections”. These, surely, are the faults which others see in us, and which we do not see ourselves only because we are deceived by our self-love.

The purification of the spirit is therefore indispensable; it is truly a “purgatory before death” to purify from all imperfection the virtue of humility and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. This purification proceeds from an infused light, which is above all an illumination of the gift of understanding and which appears obscure to us only because it is too strong for the feeble eyes of our spirit. It reveals to us ever more clearly the infinite grandeur of God, superior to all the ideas which we ourselves can form of Him. On the other hand, it shows us our own defectibility and our own deficiencies, which often are seen to extend much farther than we had thought. Then humility becomes truly humility of heart: the will to be nothing, the acknowledgement that God is all. During this purification also, God generally permits very strong temptations against faith, hope, and charity to assail the soul in order to enable the soul to place heroic acts of these, the highest virtues. The soul is obliged to believe, in the absence of all other reasons, for this sole motive: God has said it. The soul is obliged to hope, against all human hope, because God, the all-powerful, abandons not His creature unless He is first abandoned by it. The soul is obliged to love God, not because of sensible or spiritual consolations which He may give it, but because He is Infinite Goodness; it is brought to love Him more than itself, since He is infinitely better than itself. Thereby, too, the soul is led to love its neighbor despite his ingratitude, and to aid hirn to salvation.

This passive purification of the spirit thus leads to what is called the mystical death, that is, to the death of self-love, of spiritual or intellectual pride which is so subtle, to the death of egoism, the root of every sin. In the depth of the soul, therefore, incontestably reigns the love of God and of the neighbor, according to the supreme precept: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with the love of thy whole heart, and thy whole soul, and thy whole strength, and thy whole mind; and thy neighbor as thyself “.

The generous passage through these purifications of sense and spirit places the soul in the so-called mystical life, a life which is characterized by acts which cannot be produced by our personal activity aided by common grace, but that require a special inspiration, which is defined as a simple and loving knowledge of God, above reasoning and in the obscurity of faith. The soul is introduced to this infused contemplation when it successfully undergoes the purification of the senses, and such contemplation becomes more lofty when God sees fit to call the soul to higher perfection and union with Himself. Hence, the terms mystical life and contemplative life are often used interchangeably: the one term and the other both designate that life which has its beginning and end in love, that life which is the eminent exercise of the virtues of humility, faith, hope, and charity. In this life the soul burns to see the beauty of God. True it is that contemplation is not perfection; perfection, we know, is found essentially in charity. But contemplation is the most excellent means united to the end, since it joins us to God, for “the contemplative life is directed to the love of God, not of any degree, but to that which is perfect”. By such a life man “offers his soul in sacrifice to God”, and it is, so to speak, a beginning of perfect beatitude, “for it bestows on us a certain inchoate beatitude, which begins now and will be continued in the life to come”.

What is the position of the Carmelite with regard to this higher degree of union to which God raises truly generous interior souls? Let us return for an answer to this question to the Institution quoted above. Having outlined the first end of the Carmelite life, namely, to offer God a truly pure heart, the author of the book continues: “The other end of this life is attained solely by the gift of God. This end is that we may feel and experience in our mind and heart the power of the divine presence and the sweetness of heavenly glory—not only after, but even during this life. This is to drink from the torrent of God's pleasure. And it was this end that God promised to Elias, saying: And there thou shalt drink of the torrent.” We can think of no better commentary on these words than that of Fr. Titus Brandsma, O.Carm., who thus wrote in his article on Carmelite spirituality in the French Dictionary of Spirituality: “Never, as far as I know, in any Order, has a book furnishing a norm of life and describing the end toward which the members of the Order must tend announced in so formal a manner the vocation to the mystical life”.

We know that the Carmelites devoted themselves exclusively to the contemplative life until the thirteenth century. Then, it is true, the Order received a marked direction toward the active life; still, the distinctive Carmelite orientation toward the contemplative life did not change then, nor has it changed since. For example, the first Prior General of the Order after St. Simon Stock wrote a circular letter in which he emphatically sketched the mystical traditions and vocation of the Order. “Our Order”, he wrote, “from its very origin has been distinguished from all others by the solidity of its contemplative spirit. We have the joy to receive, in our cells, the luminous direction of the Holy Ghost. A treasure of inestimable value is revealed to us in the delight of contemplation, so that our soul, detached from all earthly things, may give itself in all fervor to this contemplative impulse”.

Blessed John Soreth, too, who reformed our Order in the fifteenth century, spoke eloquently and forcefully about the mystical life as the Carmelite life. He wrote that the reading of Holy Scripture, the Law of God, must occasion in us true spiritual joy over the presence of the Divine Guest in our souls. He tells us that we have been chosen, or rather that we are strictly obliged, to grow constantly in the pure love of God. Prayer for the Carmelite, he teaches, should not be merely an oasis in the desert of life—it should be one's whole life. And according to his doctrine, apostolic work is subordinated to the primary end of the Order, which is intimate and constant conversation with God.

The Teresian Reform, as is well-known, also insisted upon the lofty vocation of the Carmelite. And St. John of the Cross repeatedly insists upon the preparation which souls should make in order that God may favor them with His graces: “And it here behooves us to note why it is that there are so few that attain to this lofty state. It must be known that this is not because God is pleased that there should be few raised to this high spiritual state—on the contrary, it would please Him if all were so raised—but rather because He finds few vessels in whom He can perform so high and lofty a work”. And the Saint exclaims in his Spiritual Canticle: “O souls created for these grandeurs and called thereto! What do ye do? Wherein do ye occupy yourselves? Your desires are meannesses, and your possessions miseries. O wretched blindness of the eyes of your souls, which are blind to so great a light and deaf to so clear a voice, seeing not that for so long as ye seek grandeurs and glories ye remain miserable and deprived of so many blessings, and have become ignorant and unworthy”.

The Touraine Reform of the seventeenth century also kept this same idea of the Carmelite life, as can be seen from the writings of Michael of St. Augustine, one of the leading disciples of this reform. In his work, The Introduction to the Interior Life, he notes: “... the Religious of other Orders glory in their respective institutes; the Carmelites, however, glory more in their vocation, which is to meditate day and night on the law of the Lord, and, by being constant in prayer, to hold perpetual conversation with God”.

Finally, in the present Constitutions of our Order, we find these words: “we profess the principal and primary end of the Order to consist in prayer and contemplation”.

Realizing the high vocation to which we have been called—whether as members of the First, Second, or Third Order, lay or regular—our first feelings should be those of deep gratitude to God and His Mother and of sincere appreciation of the life and spirit of the Order. Next, we must renew our good resolve to try to be faithful to our vocation, to try to reach that degree of sanctity—and it is a high degree—to which God is most definitely calling us. That high degree, to be sure, will be the result of a free gift on His part. But we have first to use the means to dispose ourselves for such a gift, to use the particular means which we have as Carmelites: silence, solitude, prayer, mortification, complete consecration to Mary; and the use of these means in Carmel will form the subject matter for later articles. Finally, our constant plea should be that God will enable us to reach that degree of active union with Him which He requires before He will raise us to a more intimate union. While practicing the Carmelite ascetical life in silence, prayer, and mortification, we will be faithful to those words spoken to us by the Lord through His prophet Zachary: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you”. While praying that He will enable us to prepare actively in order to receive the favors He wishes to bestow upon us, we will be answering Him in the profound words of Jeremias: “Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted”.

Thomas Mcginnis, O.Carm.

In The Spirit of Carmel, No.1 - 1951

Joel J. Moelter, O.Carm.

The study of the history of spirituality has unfortunately been somewhat neglected until comparatively recent times. Yet its importance can hardly be exaggerated. It is true that those features which characterize sanctity in general must necessarily be found in all of the saints. Still there is an enormous personal factor. Thus to know that St. Teresa was a saint is not to know how she was a saint. This can be learned only by the reading of her works, and particularly of her Autobiography. For al­though every Christian lives the life of grace, still there are no two who live identical lives of grace. How much more is this condition verified in those great heroes of sanctity, the saints! As St. Bernard says, each one drinks the water from his own well.

Now to study this vast field of individual spiritual experience is the work of the history of spirituality. This study supposes the historical method, but it also presupposes the existence of a supernatural order and of the laws of grace. It is this that raises it to a category above that of mere secular history. Hence to neglect this science is a great and harmful mistake, and in fact this is not the attitude that the Church recommends. For, as Etienne Gilson, commending the study of the history of spirituality, notes: " She (the Church), on the contrary, by proposing the saints for our veneration and imitation, by recommending the spiritual writing of St. Bernard, of St. Bonaventure, of St. John of the Cross, of the two Sts. Teresa, and of so many others, invites us to become acquainted with them and study them in order to live by them ". Hence it is with a keen awareness of the utility of the study of the history of spirituality for the individual spiritual life that this series of articles is undertaken.

These article3 will deal with but one branch of the great tree of spir­ituality, namely, the Carmelite. Still, as Archbishop Goodier sagely points out, all modern mysticism can be said to derive from the great Spanish mystics of the sixteenth century. Indeed the editor of a recent edition of the works of St. John of the Cross observes that: " It is quite worthy of note and to the credit of the other glorious religious foun­dations, that, while they might have been expected to urge their own doctrinal merits, instead they have exalted with the utmost zeal and efficacy the teaching office of St. John of the Cross... ".

Nor should it be thought that only the Mystical Doctor has had this widespread influence; for it would be impossible that the great tide of mystics with which Carmel has been blessed would not exert its effect on the spirituality of the whole Church. However, besides this general value of Carmelite spirituality there is its particular and cherished sig­nificance for all Carmelites. It is this last motive that gives the true fillip to this presentation.

Now in order to present a clear idea of the history of Carmelite spir­ituality two things are necessary. First, recourse must be had to the genuine sources from which it springs; and then, an examination must be made of the living tradition of the Order. That tradition is to be found in those approved and recognized masters who give us the true spirit and authentic interpretation of the written founts. It is this two­fold path, therefore, that is followed in this investigation of the devel­opment of the spirituality of Carmel, of its interior life, of its intimate spirit; a study, as is clear, much more exacting than that of the external history of the Order.

Carmelite spirituality traces its origins back to the hermits dwelling on Mount Carmel. The two most important founts are the Rule of St. Albert, given there in the first part of the thirteenth century, and the Institution of the First Monks, written about the middle of the twelfth century or somewhat later. Without doubt the Rule of St. Albert is the most important source from a purely juridical viewpoint. However, this Rule, solemnly approved by the Apostolic See in 1226, is in reality not the foundation, but rather the official codification, of the Carmelite way of life; as can be seen from the Prologue: "But since you request it of us, that in keeping with your proposals we give you a rule of life... ". It is true that at first sight the brevity and simplicity of the Rule do not reveal its true wealth, but give instead an impression of inherent defi­ciency; nevertheless when well studied the Rule is found to include a complete code of sublime Christian spirituality. In regard to this characteristic of the Rule the Venerable John of St. Samson aptly observes:

"Our Rule is very condensed, exceedingly subtle, and contains much more than the mere words express. It must be meditated with great assiduity, for to the extent that we would become more spiritual the more carefully must we follow its precepts; that is, we must, using true and well-ordered means, revert to God with all our strength and not fall by the wayside".

This deeper content accounts for the many commentaries which have been published on the Rule. In the fourteenth century we have two brief expositions of it, one written by John Baconthorp and the other by Sihert de Beka or William de Sanvico. Later came the Exposition of Blessed John Soreth. Then in the seventeenth century Venerable Jerome Gracian, Venerable Thomas of Jesus, O.C.D., Valentine of St. Amond, Venerable John of St. Samson and John Baptist Lezana, all wrote commentaries. These were followed in the eighteenth century by those of Emmanuel of Jesus and Mary, 0.C.D., Joseph Sardi and Ignatius Rossi. In the present century there is had the treatise of Angelus of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, O.C.D.

All this literature serves better than anything else to demonstrate the place and transcendancy which the Rule holds in ^-Carmel. The Rule is the permanent basis of Carmelite life. It is true that it must be ex­plained and adapted to the needs of the day, but it must never be neg­lected or disregarded, under pain of destroying true Carmelite life. Hence it is evident that the observation of the spirit of the Rule of St. Albert as the ideal of the life of the Order is essential to Carmelite spir­ituality. This is the reason why the 'substance of the Rule has always been respected, and the Constitutions and Acts of the General Chapters have done nothing more than accommodate it to new circumstances; al­ways being deeply convinced that the continued existence and progress of the Order is grounded precisely in its exact and fervent observance. Now, although juridically the official fount of Carmelite spirituality is the Rule of St. Albert; nevertheless historically the primitive source is the Institution of the First Monks (sometimes inaccurately called the Rule of John XLIV) or the traditions on which it is founded. This work, compiled at the time of the restoration or reorganization of the Order occasioned by the Crusades in the twelfth century, was assembled to serve as a doctrinal foundation for the restoration. It contains two parts. The first part (Chap. 1.8), which is strictly doctrinal, outlines by means of an allegorical commentary on the biblical narrations concerning the prophet Elias the form which Carmel's spirituality must assume in spite of the vicissitudes of history. It presents in clear terms the tenor of the life which in imitation of Elias every Carmelite most adopt. The second part (Chap. 9-48), which can be called the historical section, gathers together the principal traditions of the Order in regard to Elias and the Blessed Virgin, tradition not in a merely formative stage but already well developed.

With every right, then, the doctrine of this venerable book can be considered the foundation of Carmelite spirituality in so far as it consti­tutes a precise summary of the spiritual doctrine of the Order and at the same time forms the official expression of the fundamental spirit of the Order. Actually the spirit of the Institution animated the Rule, the scope of which was to perfect the way of life already sketched in it and to regulate religious observance when the Order passed from a more or less elemental anchoretical constitution to a more developed cenobitical, although still solitary, form of life. Hence it may be said, as the celebrated Philip Ri'bot (d. 1391) remarks in his Mirror of the Order, that what the Institution "counseled in a general way, Albert determined in particular".

It is for this reason that the author of the so-called Epistle of St. Cyril (1230?) employed the doctrine of the Institution as the most authoritative expression of the traditions of the Order. Likewise, it was with this same body of doctrine before his eyes that Blessed Nich­olas the Frenchman wrote his renowned The Fiery Arrow (127o). However, its influence is not limited to these works but is easily de­tected in those written in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to defend the name and antiquity of the Order. Among these, especially noteworthy are: The Garden by John Grossi, A Chronicle by John de Veneta, The Patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Arnold Bostius, and The Origin of the Order by an anonymous author.

Consequently, it can be said that the early Fathers of the Order de­rived from the Institution the true spirit of Carmel which was to sustain them in their passage to the West, to the tumult of the world, to the fatigues of the Apostolate; far from the peace and tranquillity of that holy Mount which they had chosen for the contemplation of the things of God. This all agrees with what the distinguished historian of the Order, Father Gabriel Wessels wrote of the Institution: " in regard to the ascetical section it certainly exercised a great influence on the Order. Before the seventeenth century it was the principal book of the Order used for the spiritual reading of the brethren, especially after it was printed in 1507. Indeed, it was considered by all as the ancient Rule of the Order. It exerted its influence on St. Teresa, on St. John of the Cross, and on Michel of St. Augustine; as well as on the Directory of Novices, and other ascetical books of the Order ".

Hence in conclusion: the primitive founts from which has flowed the great stream of Carmelite spirituality are the Rule of St. Albert and the Institution of the First Monks. In future articles it will be shown how through the course of the centuries their simple but profound doctrine was elaborated and systematized. Still, although Carmel's spirituality has been subject to this progressive change, it continues to rise from these original springs. Accordingly it is to these primitive founts that all must hearken who seek the fundamental spirit of Carmel, the spirit that gives them the right to the beloved name of Carmelite.

Joel J. Moelter, O.Carm.

In The Spirit of Carmel - No.1 1951

Prayer Intentions of the Holy Father for March 2014

Universal: That all cultures may respect the rights and dignity of women.

For Evangelization: That many young people may accept the Lord’s invitation to consecrate their lives to proclaiming the Gospel.

Lectio Divina March - marzo - marzo 2014

• Saturday, March 1, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Mark 10,13-16
• Sunday, March 2, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: 8th Sunday in Ordinary Time (A)
• Monday, March 3, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Mark 10,17-27
• Tuesday, March 4, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Mark 10,28-31
• Wednesday, March 5, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Ash Wednesday
• Thursday, March 6, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 9,22-25
• Friday, March 7, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 9,14-15
• Saturday, March 8, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 5,27-32
• Sunday, March 9, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: 1st Sunday of Lent (A)
• Monday, March 10, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 25,31-46
• Tuesday, March 11, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 6,7-15
• Wednesday, March 12, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 11,29-32
• Thursday, March 13, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 7,7-12
• Friday, March 14, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 5,20-26
• Saturday, March 15, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 5,43-48
• Sunday, March 16, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: 2nd Sunday of Lent (A)
• Monday, March 17, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 6,36-38
• Tuesday, March 18, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 23,1-12
• Wednesday, March 19, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Saint Joseph
• Thursday, March 20, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 16,19-31
• Friday, March 21, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 21,33-43.45-46
• Saturday, March 22, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 15,1-3.11-32
• Sunday, March 23, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: 3rd Sunday of Lent (A)
• Monday, March 24, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 4,24-30
• Tuesday, March 25, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: The Annunciation of the Lord
• Wednesday, March 26, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Matthew 5,17-19
• Thursday, March 27, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 11:14-23
• Friday, March 28, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Mark 12,28b-34
• Saturday, March 29, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: Luke 18,9-14
• Sunday, March 30, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: 4th Sunday of Lent (A)
• Monday, March 31, 2014  
  Lectio Divina: John 4,43-54