THE HISTORY OF LENT
By Prosper Guéranger
The Forty Days’ Fast, which we call
Lent [In most languages the name given to this Fast expresses
the number of the day, Forty. But our word Lent signifies the
Spring-Fast; for Lenten-Tide, in the ancient English-Saxon language,
was the season of Spring. Translator.], is the Church’s preparation
for Easter, and was instituted at the very commencement of
Christianity. Our Blessed Lord himself sanctioned it by his fasting
forty days and forty nights in the desert; and though he would not
impose it on the world by an express commandment, (which, then, could
not have been open to the power of dispensation,) yet he showed
plainly enough by his own example, that Fasting, which God had so
frequently ordered in the Old Law, was to be also practised by the
Children of the New.
The Disciples of St. John the Baptist
came, one day, to Jesus, and said to him: Why do we and the Pharisees
fast often, but thy Disciples do not fast? And Jesus said to them:
Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom
is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be
taken away from them, and then they shall fast. [St Matth. ix.
14,15].
Hence, we find it mentioned in the Acts
of the Apostles, how the Disciples of our Lord, after the Foundation
of the Church, applied themselves to Fasting. In their Epistles,
also, they recommended it to the Faithful. Nor could it be otherwise.
Though the divine mysteries, whereby our Saviour wrought our
redemption, have been consummated, - yet are we still Sinners: and
where there is sin, there must be expiation.
The Apostles, therefore, legislated for
our weakness, by instituting, at the very commencement of the
Christian Church, that the Solemnity of Easter should be preceded by
a universal Fast; and it was only natural, that they should have made
this period of Penance to consist of Forty Days, seeing that our
Divine Master had consecrated that number by his own Fast. St. Jerome
[Epist. xxvii. ad Marcellam], St. Leo the Great [Serm. ii, v, ix. de
Quadragesima], St. Cyril of Alexandria [Homil. Paschal.], St. Isidore
of Seville [De Ecclesiast. Officiis, lib vi., cap. xix.], and others
of the holy Fathers, assure us that Lent was instituted by the
Apostles, although, at the commencement, there was not any uniform
way of observing it.
We have already seen, in our
Septuagesima, that the Orientals begin their Lent much earlier than
the Latins, owing to their custom of never fasting on Saturdays, (or,
in some places, even on Thursdays). They are, consequently, obliged,
in order to make up the forty days, to begin the Lenten Fast on the
Monday preceding our Sexagesima Sunday. These are the kind of
exceptions, which prove the rule. We have also shown, how the Latin
Church, - which, even so late as the 6th Century, kept only
thirty-six fasting days during the six weeks of Lent, (for the Church
has never allowed Sundays to be kept as days of fast,) - thought
proper to add, later on, the last four days of Quinquagesima, in
order that her Lent might contain exactly Forty Days of Fast.
The whole subject of Lent has been so
often and so fully treated, that we shall abridge, as much as
possible, the History we are now giving. The nature of our Work
forbids us to do more, than insert what is essential for the entering
into the spirit of each Season. God grant, that we may succeed in
showing to the Faithful the importance of the holy institution of
Lent! Its influence on the spiritual life, and on the very salvation,
of each one among us, can never be over-rated.
Lent, then, is a time consecrated, in
an especial manner, to penance; and this penance is mainly practised
by Fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes
upon himself, as an expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is
practised in obedience to the general law of the Church. According to
the actual discipline of the Western Church, the Fast of Lent is not
more rigorous than that prescribed for the Vigils of certain Feasts,
and for the Ember Days; but it is kept up for Forty successive Days,
with the single interruption of the intervening Sundays.
We deem it unnecessary to show the
importance and advantages of Fasting. The Sacred Scriptures, both of
the Old and New Testament, are filled with the praises of this holy
practice. The traditions of every nation of the world testify the
universal veneration, in which it has ever been held; for there is
not a people, nor a religion, how much soever it may have lost the
purity of primitive traditions, which is not impressed with this
conviction, - that man may appease his God by subjecting his body to
penance.
St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St.
Jerome, and St. Gregory the Great, make the remark, that the
commandment put upon our First Parents, in the earthly paradise, was
one of Abstinence; and that it was by their not exercising this
virtue, that they brought every kind of evil upon themselves and us
their children. The life of privation, which the king of creation had
thenceforward to lead on the earth, - (for the earth was to yield him
nothing of its own natural growth, save thorns and thistles,) - was
the clearest possible exemplification of the law of penance, imposed
by the anger of God on rebellious man.
During the two thousand and more years,
which preceded the Deluge, men had no other food than the fruits of
the earth, and these were only got by the toil of hard labour. But
when God, as we have already observed, mercifully shortened man’s
life, (that so he might have less time and power for sin), - he
permitted him to eat the flesh of animals, as an additional
nourishment in that state of deteriorated strength. It was then,
also, that Noah, guided by a divine inspiration, extracted the juice
of the grape, which thus formed a second stay for human debility.
Fasting, then, is the abstaining from
such nourishments as these, which were permitted for the support of
bodily strength. And firstly, it consisted in abstinence from
flesh-meat, because it is a food that was given to man by God, out of
condescension to his weakness, and not as one absolutely essential
for the maintenance of life. Its privation, greater or less according
to the regulations of the Church, is essential to the very notion of
Fasting. Thus, whilst in many countries, the use of eggs, milk-meats,
and even dripping and lard, is tolerated, - the abstaining from
flesh-meat is everywhere maintained, as being essential to Fasting.
For many centuries, eggs and milk-meats were not allowed, because
they come under the class of animal food: even to this day, they are
forbidden in the Eastern Churches, and are only allowed in the Latin
Church by virtue of an annual dispensation. The precept of abstaining
from flesh-meat is so essential to Lent, that even on Sundays, when
the Fasting is interrupted, Abstinence is an obligation, binding even
on those who are dispensed from the fasts of the week, unless there
be a special dispensation granted for eating meat on the Sundays.
In the early ages of Christianity,
Fasting included also the abstaining from Wine, as we learn from St.
Cyril of Jerusalem [Catech. iv], St. Basil [Homil. i. De Jejunio],
St. John Chrysostom [Homil. iv. Ad populum Antioch.], Theophilus of
Alexandria [Litt. Pasch, iii], and others. In the West, this custom
soon fell into disuse. The Eastern Christians kept it up much longer,
but even with them it has ceased to be considered as obligatory.
Lastly, Fasting includes the depriving
ourselves of some portion of our ordinary food, inasmuch as it only
allows the taking of one meal during the day. Though the
modifications introduced from age to age in the discipline of Lent,
are very numerous, yet the points we have here mentioned belong to
the very essence of Fasting, as is evident from the universal
practice of the Church.
It was the custom with the Jews, in the
Old Law, not to take the one meal, allowed on fasting days, till
sun-set. The Christian Church adopted the same custom. It was
scrupulously practised, for many centuries, even in our Western
countries. But, about the 9th century, some relaxation began to be
introduced in the Latin Church. Thus, we have a Capitularium of
Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans, (who lived at that period,) protesting
against the practice, which some had, of taking their repast at the
hour of None, that is to say, about three o’clock in the afternoon
[Capitul. xxxix. Labb. Conc. tom. viii.]. The relaxation, however,
gradually spread; for, in the 10th century, we find the celebrated
Ratherius, Bishop of Verona, acknowledging, that the Faithful had
permission to break their fast at the hour of None [Serm. 1, De
Quadrages. D’Archery. Spicilegium, tom. ii.]. We meet with a
sort of reclamation made as late as the 11th century, by a Council
held at Rouen, which forbids the Faithful to take their repast before
Vespers shall have begun to be sung in the Church, at the end of None
[Orderic Vital. Histor., lib. iv.]; but this shows us, that the
custom had already begun of anticipating the hour of Vespers, in
order that the Faithful might take their meal earlier in the day. Up
to within a short period before this time, it had been the custom not
to celebrate Mass, on days of Fasting, until the Office of None had
been sung, (which was about three o’clock in the afternoon,) - and,
also, not to sing Vespers till sun-set. When the discipline regarding
Fasting began to relax, the Church still retained the order of her
Offices, which had been handed down from the earliest times. The only
change she made, was to anticipate the hour for Vespers; and this
entailed the celebrating Mass and None much earlier in the day;- so
early, indeed, that, when custom had so prevailed as to authorise the
Faithful taking their repast at mid-day, all the Offices, even the
Vespers, were over before that hour.
In the 12th century, the custom of
breaking one’s fast at the hour of None everywhere prevailed, as we
learn from Hugh of Saint-Victor [In regul. S. Augustini, cap.iii];
and in the 13th century, it was sanctioned by the teaching of the
School-men. Alexander Hales declares most expressly, that such a
custom was lawful [Summa, Part. iv. Quaest. 28, art. 2.]; and
St. Thomas of Aquin, is equally decided in the same opinion [2a 2ae
Q. 147, a. 7].
But even the fasting till None, (i.e.
three o’clock,) was found too severe; and a still further
relaxation was considered to be necessary. At the close of the 13th
century, we have the celebrated Franciscan, Richard of Middleton,
teaching, that they who break their fast at the Hour of Sext, (i.e.
mid-day,) are not to be considered as transgressing the precept of
the Church; and the reason he gives, is this: that the custom of
doing so had already prevailed in many places, and that fasting does
not consist so much in the lateness of the hour at which the faithful
take their refreshment, as in their taking but one meal during the
twenty-four hours [In iv. Dist. xv., art. 3., quaest. 8].
The 14th century gave weight, both by
universal custom and theological authority, to the opinion held by
Richard of Middleton. It will, perhaps, suffice if we quote the
learned Dominican, Durandus, Bishop of Meaux, who says, that there
can be no doubt as to the lawfulness of taking one’s repast at
mid-day; and he adds, that such was then the custom observed by the
Pope, and Cardinals, and even the Religious Orders [In iv. Dist. xv.,
Quaest. 9., art 7]. We cannot, therefore, be surprised at finding
this opinion maintained, in the 15th century, by such grave authors
as St. Antoninus, Cardinal Cajetan, and others. Alexander Hales and
St. Thomas sought to prevent the relaxation going beyond the Hour of
None; but their zeal was disappointed, and the present discipline was
established, we might almost say, during their life-time.
But, whilst this relaxation of taking
the repast so early in the day as twelve o’clock rendered fasting
less difficult in one way, it made it more severe in another. The
body grew exhausted by the labours of the long second half of the
twenty-four hours; and the meal, that formerly closed the day, and
satisfied the cravings of fatigue, had been already taken. It was
found necessary to grant some refreshment for the evening, and it was
called a Collation. The word was taken from the Benedictine Rule,
which, for long centuries before this change in the Lenten
observance, had allowed a Monastic Collation. St. Benedict’s Rule
prescribed a great many Fasts, over and above the ecclesiastical Fast
of Lent; but it made this great distinction between the two:- that
whilst Lent obliged the Monks, as well as the rest of the Faithful,
to abstain from food till sunset, these monastic fasts allowed the
repast to be taken at the hour of None. But, as the Monks had heavy
manual labour during the summer and autumn months, (which was the
very time when these Fasts “till None” occurred several days of
each week, and, indeed, every day from the 14th of September;) the
Abbot was allowed by the Rule to grant his Religious permission to
take a small measure of wine before Compline, as a refreshment after
the fatigues of the afternoon. It was taken by all at one and the
same time, during the evening reading, which was called Conference,
(in Latin, Collatio,) because it was mostly taken from the
celebrated Conferences (Collationes) of Cassian. Hence, this evening
monastic refreshment got the name of Collation.
We find the Assembly, or Chapter of
Aix-la-Chapelle, held in 817, extending this indulgence even to the
Lenten fast, on account of the great fatigue entailed by the Offices,
which the Monks had to celebrate during this holy Season. But
experience showed, that unless something solid were allowed to be
taken together with the wine, the evening Collation would be an
injury to the health of many of the Religious; accordingly, towards
the close of the 14th, or the beginning of the 15th century, the
usage was introduced of taking a morsel of bread with the
Collation-beverage.
As a matter of course, these
mitigations of the ancient severity of Fasting soon found their way
from the cloister into the world. The custom of taking something to
drink, on Fasting Days, out of the time of the repast, was gradually
established; and even so early as the 13th century, we have St.
Thomas of Aquin discussing the question, whether or no drink is to be
considered as a breaking of the precept of Fasting [In iv. Quaest.
cxlvii. art, 6]. He answers in the negative; and yet he does not
allow that anything solid may be taken with the drink. But when it
had become the universal practice, (as it did in the latter part of
the 13th century, and still more fixedly during the whole of the
14th,) that the one meal on Fasting Days was taken at mid-day, a mere
beverage was found in sufficient to give support, and there was added
to it bread, herbs, fruits, &c. Such was the practice, both in
the world and the cloister. It was, however, clearly understood by
all, that these eatables were not to be taken in such quantity as to
turn the Collation into a second meal. Thus did the decay of piety,
and the general deterioration of bodily strength among the people of
the Western nations, infringe on the primitive observance of Fasting.
To make our history of these humiliating changes anything like
complete, we must mention one more relaxation. For several centuries,
abstinence from flesh-meat included likewise the prohibition of every
article of food that belonged to what is called the animal kingdom,
with the single exception of Fish, which, on account of its cold
nature, as also for several mystical reasons, founded on the Sacred
Scriptures, was always permitted to be taken by those who fasted.
Every sort of milk-meat was forbidden; and in Rome, even to this day,
butter and cheese are not permitted during Lent, except on those days
whereon permission to eat meat is granted.
Dating from the 9th century, the custom
of eating milk-meats during Lent began to be prevalent in Western
Europe, more especially in Germany and the northern countries. The
Council of Kedlimburg, held in the 11th century, made an effort to
put a stop to the practice as an abuse; but without effect [Labbe,
Concil., tom. x.]. These Churches maintained that they were in the
right, and defended their custom by the dispensations, (though, in
reality, only temporary ones,) granted them by several Sovereign
Pontiffs: the dispute ended by their being left peaceably to enjoy
what they claimed. The Churches of France resisted this innovation up
to the 16th century; but in the 17th, they too yielded, and
milk-meats were taken during Lent, throughout the whole Kingdom. As
some reparation for this breach of ancient discipline, the City of
Paris instituted a solemn rite, whereby she wished to signify her
regret at being obliged to such a relaxation. On Quinquagesima
Sunday, all the different Parishes went in procession to the Church
of Notre Dame. The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, and
Augustinians, took part in the procession. The Metropolitan Chapter,
and the four Parishes that were subject to it, held, on the same day,
a Station in the court-yard of the Palace, and sang an Anthem before
the Relic of the True Cross, which was exposed in the Sainte
Chapelle. These pious usages, which were intended to remind the
people of the difference between the past and the present observance
of Lent, continued to be practised till the Revolution.
But this grant for the eating
milk-meats during Lent, did not include eggs. Here, the ancient
discipline was maintained, at least this far, - that eggs were not
allowed, save by a dispensation, which had to be renewed each year.
In Rome they are only allowed on days when Flesh-meat may be taken.
In other places, they are allowed on some days, and on others,
especially during Holy Week, are forbidden. Invariably do we find the
Church, seeking, out of anxiety for the spiritual advantage of her
Children, to maintain all she can of those penitential observances,
whereby they may satisfy Divine Justice. It was with this intention,
that Pope Benedict the Fourteenth, alarmed at the excessive facility
wherewith dispensation were then obtained, renewed, by a solemn
Constitution, (dated June 10, 1745,) the prohibition of eating fish
and meat, at the same meal, on fasting days.
The same Pope, whose spirit of
moderation has never been called in question, had no sooner ascended
the Papal Throne, than he addressed an Encyclical Letter to the
Bishops of the Catholic world, expressing his heartfelt grief at
seeing the great relaxation that was introduced among the Faithful by
indiscreet and unnecessary dispensations. The Letter is dated May
30th, 1741. We extract from it the following passage: “The
observance of Lent is the very badge of the Christian warfare. By it,
we prove ourselves not to be enemies of the Cross of Christ. By it,
we avert the scourges of divine justice. By it, we gain strength
against the princes of darkness, for it shields us with heavenly
help. Should mankind grow remiss in their observance of Lent, it
would be a detriment to God’s glory, a disgrace to the Catholic
religion, and a danger to Christian souls. Neither can it be doubted,
but that such negligence would become the source of misery to the
world, of public calamity, and of private woe.” [Constitution: Non
ambigimus.]
More than a hundred years have elapsed
since this solemn warning of the Vicar of Christ was given to the
world; and during that time, the relaxation, he inveighed against,
has gone on gradually increasing. How few Christians do we meet, who
are strict observers of Lent, even in its present mild form! The long
list of general Dispensations granted, each year, by the Bishops to
their flocks, would lead us to suppose that the immense majority of
the Faithful would be scrupulously exact in the fulfilment of the
Fasting and Abstinence still remaining; but is such the case? And
must there not result from this ever-growing spirit of
immortification, a general effeminacy of character, which will lead,
at last, to frightful social disorders? The sad predictions of Pope
Benedict the Fourteenth are but too truly verified. Those nations,
among whose people the spirit and practice of penance are extinct,
are heaping against themselves the wrath of God, and provoking his
justice to destroy them by one or other of these scourges, - civil
discord, or conquest. In our own country, there is an inconsistency,
which must strike every thinking mind:- the observance of the Lord’s
Day, on the one side; the national inobservance of days of penance
and fasting, on the other. - The first is admirable, and, (if we
except puritanical extravagances,) be speaks a deep-rooted sense of
religion: but the second is one of the worst presages for the future.
No:- the word of God is too plain: unless we do penance, we shall
perish [St. Luke, xiii. 3]. But, if our ease-loving and sensual
generation were to return, like the Ninivites, to the long-neglected
way of penance and expiation, - who knows, but that the arm of God
which is already raised to strike us, may give us blessing, and not
chastisement? Let us resume our History, and seek our edification in
studying the fervour wherewith the Christians of former times used to
observe Lent. We will first offer to our readers a few instances of
the manner in which Dispensations were given.
In the 13th century, the Archbishop of
Braga applied to the reigning Pontiff, Innocent the Third, asking
him, what compensation he ought to require of his people, who, in
consequence of a dearth of the ordinary articles of food, had been
necessitated to eat meat during the Lent? He at the same time,
consulted the Pontiff as to how he was to act in the case of the
sick, who asked for a dispensation from abstinence. The answer given
by Innocent, which is inserted in the Canon Law [Decretal., lib. iii.
cap. Concilium; de Jejunio. Tit. xlvi.], is, as we might expect, full
of considerateness and charity; but we learn from this fact, that
such was then the respect for the law of Lent, that it was considered
necessary to apply to the Sovereign Pontiff, when dispensations were
sought for. We find many such instances in the history of the Church.
Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia, being
seized with a malady, which rendered it dangerous to his health to
take Lenten diet, - he applied, in the year 1297, to Pope Boniface
the Eighth, for leave to eat meat. The Pontiff commissioned two
Cistercian Abbots to enquire into the real state of the Prince’s
health: they were to grant the dispensation sought for, if they found
it necessary; but on the following conditions: that the King had not
bound himself by a vow, for life, to fast during Lent; that the
Fridays, Saturdays, and the Vigil of St. Matthias, were to be
excluded from the dispensation; and, lastly, that the King was not to
take his meal in the presence of others, and was to observe
moderation in what he took [Raynaldi, Ad ann. 1297].
In the 14th century, we meet with two
Briefs of dispensation, granted by Clement the Sixth, in 1351, to
John, King of France, and to his Queen consort. In the first, the
Pope, - taking into consideration, that during the wars in which the
King is engaged he frequently finds himself in places where fish can
with difficulty be procured, - grants to the Confessor of the King
the power of allowing, both to his majesty and his suite, the use of
meat on days of abstinence, excepting, however, the whole of Lent,
all Fridays of the year, and certain Vigils; provided, moreover, that
neither he, nor those who accompany him, are under a vow of perpetual
abstinence [D’Archery. Spicilegium. tom. iv.]. In the second Brief
the same Pope, replying to the petition made him by the King for a
dispensation from fasting, again commissions his Majesty’s present
and future Confessors, to dispense both the King and his Queen, after
having consulted with their Physicians [D’Archery. Spicilegium.
tom. iv.]. A few years later, that is, in 1376, Pope Gregory the
Eleventh sent a Brief in favour of Charles 5th, King of France, and
of Jane, his Queen. In this Brief, he delegates to their Confessor
the power of allowing them the use of eggs and milk-meats, during
Lent, should their Physician, think they stand in need of such
dispensation; but he tells both Physicians and Confessor, that he
puts it upon their consciences, and that they will have to answer
before God for their decision. The same permission is granted also to
their servants and cooks, but only as far as it is needed for their
tasting the food to be served to their Majesties.
The 15th century, also, furnishes us
with instances of this applying to the Holy See for Lenten
dispensations. We will cite the Brief addressed by Xystus the Fourth,
in 1483, to James 3rd, King of Scotland; in which he grants him
permission to eat meat on days of abstinence, provided his Confessor
consider the dispensation needed [Raynald, Ad ann. 1484]. In the
following century, we have Julius the Second granting a like
dispensation to John, King of Denmark, and to his Queen Christina
[Ibid. Ad ann. 1505]; and, a few years later, Clement the Seventh
giving one to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, [Ibid. Ad ann. 1524],
and, again, to Henry the Second of Navarre, and to his Queen Margaret
[Ibid. Ad ann. 1533].
Thus were Princes themselves treated,
three centuries ago, when they sought for a dispensation from the
sacred law of Lent. What are we to think of the present indifference
wherewith it is kept? What comparison can be made between the
Christians of former times, who, deeply impressed with the fear of
God’s judgments and with the spirit of penance, cheerfully went
through these forty days of mortification, - and those of our own
days, when love of pleasure and self-indulgence is for ever lessening
man’s horror for sin? Where there is little or no fear of having to
penance ourselves for sin, there is so much the less restraint to
keep us from committing it. Where now that simple and innocent joy at
Easter, which our forefathers used to show, when, after their severe
fast of Lent, they partook of substantial and savoury food? The
peace, which long and sharp mortification ever brings to the
conscience, gave them the capability, not to say the right, of being
light-hearted as they returned to the comforts of life, which they
had denied themselves, in order to spend forty days in penance,
recollection, and retirement from the world. This leads us to mention
some further details, which will assist the Catholic reader to
understand what Lent was in the Ages of Faith.
It was a season, during which, not only
all amusements and theatrical entertainments were forbidden by the
civil authority [It was the Emperor Justinian who passed this law, as
we learn from Photius; Nomocanon. tit. vii., cap. i. It is still in
force in Rome.], but when even the Law Courts were closed; and this,
in order to secure that peace and calm of heart, which is so
indispensable for the Soul’s self-examination, and reconciliation
with her offended Maker. As early as the year 380, Gratian and
Theodosius enacted, that Judges should suspend all lawsuits and
proceedings, during the forty days preceding Easter (Cod. Theodos.,
lib. ix., tit. xxxv., leg. 4.]. The Theodosian Code contains several
regulations of this nature; and we find councils, held in the 9th
century, urging the Kings of that period to enforce the one we have
mentioned, seeing that it had been sanctioned by the Canons, and
approved of by the Fathers of the Church [Labbe, Concil., tom. vii.
and ix.]. These admirable Christian traditions have long since fallen
into disuse in the countries of Europe; but they are still kept up
among the Turks, who, during the forty days of their Ramadan, forbid
all law proceedings. What a humiliation for us Christians!
Hunting, too, was for many ages
considered as forbidden during Lent;- the spirit of the holy season
was too sacred to admit such exciting and noisy sport. The Pope, St.
Nicholas the First, in the 9th century, forbade it the Bulgarians [Ad
Consultat. Bulgarorum. Labbe, Concil., tom. viii.], who had been
recently converted to the Christian Faith. Even so late as the 13th
Century, we find St. Raymund of Pegnafort teaching, that they who,
during Lent, take part in the chase, if it be accompanied by certain
circumstances, which he specifies, cannot be excused from sin [Summ.
cas. Poenit., lib. iii, tit. xxix. De laps. et disp., §1]. This
prohibition has long since been a dead letter; but St. Charles
Borromeo, in one of his Synods, re-established it in his province of
Milan.
But we cannot be surprised that Hunting
should be forbidden during Lent, when we remember, that, in those
Christian times, War itself, which is sometimes so necessary for the
welfare of a nation, was suspended during this holy Season. In the
4th century, we have the Emperor Constantine the Great enacting, that
no military exercises should be allowed on Sundays and Fridays, out
of respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered and rose again on
these two days, as also in order not to disturb the peace and repose
needed for the due celebration of such sublime mysteries [Euseb.
Constant. vita, lib. iv.. cap. xviii. et xix.]. The discipline of the
Latin Church, in the 9th century, enforced everywhere the suspension
of war, during the whole of Lent, except in cases of necessity
[Labbe, Concil. tom. vii]. The instructions of Pope St. Nicholas the
First to the Bulgarians recommend the same observance [Ibid. tom. x];
and we learn, from a letter of St. Gregory the Seventh to Desiderius,
Abbot of Monte Cassino, that it was kept up in the 11th century
[Ibid. tom. x]. We have an instance of its being practised in our own
country, in the 12th century, when, as William of Malmesbury relates,
the Empress Matilda, Countess of Anjou, and daughter of King Henry,
was contesting the right of succession to the throne against Stephen,
Count of Boulogne. The two armies were in sight of each other;- but
an armistice was demanded and observed, for it was the Lent of 1143
[Willhelm. Malmesbur. Hist. nov. no. 30].
Our readers have heard, no doubt, of
the admirable institution called God’s Truce, whereby the Church,
in the 11th century, succeeded in preventing much bloodshed. It was a
law that forebade the carrying arms from Wednesday evening till
Monday morning, throughout the year. It was sanctioned by the
authority of Popes and Councils, and enforced by all Christian
Princes. It was a continuing, during four days of each week of the
year, the Lenten discipline of the suspension of war. Our saintly
King, Edward the Confessor, gave a still greater extension to it, by
passing a law, (which was confirmed by his successor, William the
Conqueror,) that God’s Truce should be observed, without cessation,
from the beginning of Advent to the Octave of Easter, from the
Ascension to the Whitsuntide Octave; on all the Ember Days; on the
Vigils of all feasts; and, lastly, every week, from None on Wednesday
till Monday morning, which had been already prescribed [Labbe,
Concil. tom. ix.].
In the Council of Clermont, held in
1095, Pope Urban the Second, after drawing up the regulations for the
Crusades, used his authority in extending the God’s Truce, as it
was then observed during Lent. His decree, which was renewed in the
Council held the following year at Rouen, was to this effect: that
all war proceedings should be suspended from Ash Wednesday to the
Monday after the Octave of Pentecost, and on all Vigils and Feasts of
the Blessed Virgin and the Apostles, over and above what was already
regulated for each week, that is, from Wednesday evening to Monday
morning [Orderic Vital. Hist. Eccles. lib. ix.].
Thus did the world testify its respect
for the holy observances of Lent, and borrow some of its wisest
institutions from the seasons and feasts of the liturgical year. The
influence of this Forty-Days’ penance was great, too, on each
individual. It renewed man’s energies, gave him fresh vigour in
battling with his animal instincts, and, by the restraint it put upon
sensuality, ennobled the soul. Yes, there was restraint everywhere;
and the present discipline of the Church, which forbids the
Solemnisation of Marriage, during Lent, reminds Christians of that
holy continency, which, for many ages, was observed during the whole
Forty Days as a precept, and of which the most sacred of the
liturgical books - the Missal - still retains the recommendation
[Missale Romanum. Missa pro sponso et sponsa].
It is with reluctance that we close our
history of Lent, and leave untouched so many other interesting
details. For instance, what treasures we could have laid open to our
readers from the Lenten usages of the Eastern Churches, which have
retained so much of the primitive discipline! We cannot, however,
resist devoting our last page to the following particulars.
We mentioned in the preceding Volume,
that the Sunday we call Septuagesima, is called, by the Greeks,
Prophoné, because the opening of Lent is proclaimed on that day. The
Monday following it is counted as the first day of the next week,
which is Apocreos, the name they give to the Sunday which closes that
week, and which is our Sexagesima Sunday. The Greek Church begins
abstinence from flesh-meat with this week. Then, on the morrow,
Monday, commences the week called Tyrophagos, which ends with the
Sunday of that name, and which corresponds to our Quinquagesima.
White-meats are allowed during that week. Finally, the morrow is the
first day of the first week of Lent, and the Fast begins, with all
its severity, on that Monday, whilst, in the Latin Church, it is
deferred to the Wednesday.
During the whole of Lent, (at least, of
the Lent preceding Easter,) milk-meats, eggs, and even fish, are
forbidden. The only food permitted to be eaten with bread, is
vegetables, honey, and, for those who live near the sea, shell-fish.
For many centuries, wine might not be taken: but it is now permitted:
and on the Annunciation and Palm Sunday, a dispensation is granted
for eating fish.
Besides the Lent preparatory to the
feast of Easter, the Greeks keep three others in the year: that which
is called of the Apostles, which lasts from the Octave of Pentecost
to the feast of Saints Peter and Paul; that of the Virgin Mary, which
begins on the first of August, and ends with the Vigil of the
Assumption; and lastly, the Lent of preparation for Christmas, which
consists of forty days. The fasting and abstinence of these three
Lents are not quite so severe as those observed during the great
Lent. The other if Christian nations of the East also observe several
Lents, and more rigidly than the Greeks; but all these details would
lead us too far. We, therefore, pass on to the mysteries which are
included in this holy season.
Little Pictorial Lives of the Saints, a
compilation based on Butler's Lives of the Saints and
other sources by John Gilmary Shea (Benziger Brothers: New York,
1894).
Saint
Valentine, Priest & Martyr
Valentine was a holy priest in Rome,
who assisted the martyrs during the persecution under Claudius II.
His great virtue and influence became known, and he was apprehended
and brought before the emperor's tribunal. Why, Valentine, do you
want to be the friend of our enemies and reject our friendship? The
Christian priest replied, My Lord, if you knew the gift of God, you
would be happy, and your empire with you; you would reject the cult
of your idols and would adore the true God and His Son Jesus Christ.
One of the judges interrupted, asking the martyr what he thought of
Jupiter and Mercury. That they were miserable, and spent all their
lives in debauchery and crime! The judge, furious, cried, He has
blasphemed against the gods and against the empire! The emperor
nonetheless continued his questioning with curiosity, pleased to have
this opportunity to know what Christians thought. Valentine had the
courage to exhort him to do penance for the blood of Christians which
he had shed. Believe in Jesus Christ, be baptized and you will be
saved, and already in this life you will insure your empire's glory
and the triumph of your arms. Claudius began to be convinced, and
said to those in attendance, Hear the beautiful doctrine this man is
teaching us! But the prefect of Rome, dissatisfied, cried out, See
how this Christian is seducing our prince! Claudius, weakening,
abandoned the holy priest to another judge.
This man, named Asterius, had a little
girl who had been blind for two years. Hearing of Jesus Christ, the
Light of the world, he asked Valentine if he could convey that light
to his child. Saint Valentine placed his hand on her eyes and prayed:
Lord Jesus Christ, true Light, illuminate this blind child! The child
saw, and the Judge with all his family confessed Christ and received
Baptism. The emperor, hearing of this, would have turned his gaze
away from these conversions, but fear caused him to betray his sense
of justice. With several other Christians Saint Valentine was
tortured and martyred in the year 268.
This illustrious martyr has always been
held in great honor in Rome, where there still exists a catacomb
named for him.
