Salesian Literature

12.  The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Sermon for the Feast of the Purification, February 2, 1622, concerning the three names of this feast, the Mystery of the Incarnation and the union of the Divine and human natures in Our Lord. Our Lady as the "new Eve," how Satan induced Eve to hate God's commandment, our temptations to hatred of God's commandments (which is the first degree of disobedience). Our Lady's love for God's commandments and for God who gave the commandment, the "heresy" of choosing which commandments we shall obey, and the happiness of "carrying" Our Lord and of being "carried" by Him.

​

We celebrate today the Feast of the Purification of Our Lady. Now this feast has three names. The Greeks and Orientals call it the Presentation of the Son of God in the Temple, because on this day Our Lady went up to Jerusalem to present the only Son of God to His Eternal Father in the very Temple of God. The second name is that of the Purification of the Virgin, because the Law ordered women to go to the Temple to be purified 40 days after their delivery [Lev. 12:6-8] and to bring two animals for an offering. (The pair of turtledoves offered by the sacred Virgin [Lk. 2:24] was a sign and testimony of her Purification). Others call it the Feast of Meeting, because on this day the different types of persons found in the Church of God came together in the Temple. There we find Our Lady and St. Joseph, who were both virgins, yet married; St. Simeon who, according to the most common opinion of the ancient Fathers, was a priest; good Anna, a prophetess and a widow; and Our Lord, who is God and man. For this reason some call it the Feast of Meeting.[1] The third name given to the feast is that of St. Simeon the Just because he was in the Temple at that time, where he attained the fulfillment of his desires, and he witnessed to it by entoning his beautiful canticle, the Nunc Dimittis [Lk. 2:29-32]. Now I thought it would be both profitable and agreeable to your hearts to say something to you on these three names.

 

As to the first, the Presentation of the Son of God in the Temple, I make this first consideration. Of all the sacrifices that had been offered to the Divine Majesty from the beginning of the world, none was equal to this in merit, inasmuch as the many holocausts and victims that had been immolated were vile and abject creatures such as sheep, goats, bulls or birds [Ps. 40:7-8; Heb. 10:4-9]. But on this day the Son of God is offered to His Father in His own Temple. This offering is beautifully represented by the ceremonies we observe in the Church today, for the procession with lighted candles reminds us of that divine procession of the Virgin when she entered the Temple carrying in her arms her Son, who is the Light of the world [Jn. 1:9; 8:12; 9:5]. Thus when Christians carry candles in their hands it is to testify that if it were possible they would carry Our Lord in their arms as did Our Lady and blessed Simeon, and would offer Him to the Eternal Father with as fervent a devotion as they now carry the candles that represent Him. This feast is the last of all those celebrated in honor of the Incarnation,[2] for from now on those which we shall celebrate in the liturgical cycle do not refer to this mystery or to the infancy of the Saviour, but rather to His Death, Resurrection and Ascension; in other words, they will be feasts of our Redemption. I shall then say a word about the Incarnation, since it concerns my subject.

 

This mystery is admirably represented by the candles which we carry today. A candle has one nature that is quite different from the separate natures of fire, wick and wax that are united to form it. Now in Our Lord also there are three substances which form only two natures, and these two natures, though distinct and remote from each other, form but one Person. These two natures are so closely united that the attributes and praises which are said of one are also said of the other; so that of this union it is equally true to say that God became man, and that man became God.[3] However, in the Incarnation God was made like unto us men [Phil. 2:7; Heb. 4:15] in human substance and nature, but not in [degree of] perfection, for in this He infinitely surpasses us.

 

The fire, which is the first and most excellent element in the candle, is a symbol of the Divinity. In a hundred places in Holy Scripture it is used to represent the Divine Nature, for there are many comparisons between fire and Divinity. I shall mention only a few. Fire is the first and principal of all created elements; Divinity is the source and supreme origin of all beings. Fire is subtile; Divinity has this property of subtlety in a most noble and excellent degree. Fire has its dwelling in the third region of the air;[4] it always tends upward and throws its sparks higher, and remains upon earth only when united with some material substance. We do not see it as it is in its own proper sphere, because this [its own proper sphere] is the highest region of the air, from which it does not burn us, since its heat is tempered by the atmosphere. God dwells in Himself, His center being no other than Himself; hence when He determined to communicate Himself to man He went out of Himself as if by a divine effort and ravishment or ecstasy, in order to become united with His creation.[5] But He could not have dwelt on earth nor be seen by men [Bar. 3:38] if He had not taken to Himself a nature which would serve Him in some material way in order to retain Him. Fire always shoots out from its center, never knowing any repose. But God, who is Himself His own proper center, neither comes nor goes. Yet He fills all things with His Divinity and finds His center everywhere because He is All in all. Fire is a light which enlightens; Divinity is a Light that lights up the darkness [Jn. 1:5; cf. 2 Pet. 1:19], but Its brightness is so luminous and blinding that It is all darkness and obscurity so that It cannot be perceived nor apprehended in this life except by shadows and figures [Jn. 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16]. Thus we see how the nature of fire represents the Divinity. I am not considering an infinity of other similarities between the two.

 

The other two elements of the candle, the wick and the wax, symbolize the soul and body of Our Lord. The wick united with the wax and fire gives an excellent light; but if we place it in the fire without being joined to the wax it will only send forth smoke or a very obscure flame. The nature of the wick is, without doubt, nobler than that of the wax. For wicks are ordinarily made of cotton, which grows very high on trees, while, on the contrary, everybody knows that wax is gathered like honey by bees from flowers which are near the ground. Truly the nature of the soul is far superior to that of the body; it is not corporeal nor earthly. And if it does not come from Heaven, still less does it come from earth; it is created by God at the same moment that it is infused into the body, which it embellishes and ennobles. In this life the soul without the body might, so to speak, still exist, but the manifestation of its feelings and emotions, its thoughts and sentiments, would be impossible without the senses, organs and members of the body. Man is therefore dual; for just as the body has need of the soul to give it vitality, so the soul, by a certain correspondence, requires this union with the body. In the same way, the wax, in order to give light, must be united with the wick — and the wick cannot do without the wax if it is to burn clearly. Now as we have said, the nature of the wax and that of the wick are different. One comes from the earth and is made by bees, while the other grows on big trees without any creature fashioning it, being made as it is by the Creator Himself. Nevertheless, these two natures are so united and mingled in the candles we carry that they make only a single candle, which fact is admirable.

 

The soul, as we have said, is entirely spiritual. It does not grow here below; it is created by God alone without the cooperation of any creature. But the body comes from the earth, for we know that the first man was formed out of the ground [Gen. 2:7] and, since that time, the body is formed from the substance of man and woman so that, for this reason, it is their work. Now although the soul and body are so different from one another, nevertheless they form one single person that we call man; they are so united by this union and joining that we speak of the two as if there were only one — just as when we speak of the excellence, the beauty, or other such qualities of a candle we do not make any distinction between the wick and the wax, but express it by only a single word: "This candle" is beautiful or good—speaking of the two natures found in it as if there were only one. The sacred body of Our Lord was not spiritual any more than that of other men, although it was more noble and excellent than ours, not having been conceived by the help of man, but by the Holy Spirit [Mr. 1:20; Lk, 1:35], who formed it of the most pure blood of the Virgin in such a way that this body is exactly like ours in substance. But His most holy soul was created by God, who at the very moment of its creation placed it in the body formed by the power of the Holy Spirit; and from thence these two substances of soul and body remained so joined and united that they formed but one perfect nature.

 

Fire, on being applied to the candle to light it, attaches itself more readily to the wick than to the wax, perhaps because its nature is more noble than that of wax and therefore more suited to be the first joined to the fire. In the Incarnation, the fire of Divinity, determining to unite Itself with human nature in order to render it all luminous, began by first attaching Itself to the wick — that is to say, to the soul of Our Lord. Now when I say that It was first united with His soul, represented by the wick, we must not understand this in such wise that, desiring to be enlightened on this Mystery of the Incarnation, we deceive ourselves. When I say that the Divinity attached Itself first to the soul of Our Lord, you must not imagine that this union between the Divinity and Jesus' soul took place two or three hours before the union with His sacred body. Oh no, for although the body of Our Lord was formed first, yet it did not exist one moment without being united with the soul- Likewise the soul and body of Our Lord did not exist one moment without being united to the Divinity. At the very moment that His soul and body were united in the womb of the Virgin, immediately the Divinity was united to both the one and the other. Nevertheless, this union began first with the soul as the more noble, and then passed to the body, but so subtly that both were united to the Divine Nature at the same time. This fact is well represented to us by the subtle way in which fire takes hold of the wick and the wax; for though it is first united with the wick, it is at the same instant united with the wax.

 

Now, this Divine Nature is so united and joined to the human nature and they form such a union and communion that man became God and God became man; moreover, the three substances were so united in the Person of Our Lord that they formed only two perfect natures, namely the human and the Divine, which, although infinitely removed from one another, nevertheless in the Incarnation form only one Person. This is all I have to say on the first name given to this feast.

 

The second name given to it is that of the Purification of the Virgin. Everyone is in unparalleled amazement to see this most holy Lady willing to subject herself to the law of purification, for she was a virgin and consequently had no need of it. Why then does she go to the Temple to be purified today? Indeed, until that time every woman who had become a mother was sullied as a consequence of Original Sin. That is why not only they, but also the children who were born of them, were in need of this cleansing, which they received in a very rigorous manner. Alas, even if we ourselves have not sinned, nevertheless we are all tainted with the guilt of our first father, Adam, and have made our entrance into the world under God's wrath [Ps. 51:7; Eph. 2:3], laden with the heavy weight of our iniquities. But this Divine Child had no more need of purification than His Mother, for not only was He not in sin, but what is more, He could not sin. It was impossible that sin should exist in Him — in Him, I say, who came to destroy it. He Himself proclaimed this [Jn. 8:46; Rom, 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21]. "I am not," He could have said, "subject to the law of purification for I am the Son of God and therefore I have no sin in Me." This is an infallible truth.

 

Now as the Son was not sullied, neither was the Mother; for although it was not impossible for the Virgin to have had some sin, and being born of a mother and father she could have been slightly stained with it like other children, nevertheless it would not be fitting that the Mother of such a Son should be stained with Original Sin. This is the reason why, by a very special and singular privilege, this sacred Virgin, through divine grace, was conceived without sin;[6] she was most pure from her Conception and remained so in the Incarnation, for, having conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit [Lk. 1:35], she remained a virgin at childbirth and afterwards.

 

Why is it, then, that this most holy Lady, being all pure and without stain, wished to go to the Temple to be purified like other women—especially in view of the fact that this was not a universal law, but only a law established by Moses? There are thousands and thousands of reasons for it in the early Fathers, that is, with the ancient Doctors; but I shall make use of Genesis to show you why the sacred Virgin, although not obliged by the Law of Purification, chooses nevertheless to subject herself to it.

 

I shall then speak briefly about the fall of our first father and mother, Adam and Eve [Gen. 2:15-17; 3:1-5]. This will not be out of place since Our Lord, of whom mention is made on this feast, is called the "new Adam" [Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45] who came to repair the sin of the first, and by His obedience make satisfaction for the other's disobedience; and Our Lady is called the "new Eve."[7] Now it is written that God created man and woman in original justice, which rendered them extremely beautiful and so capable of corresponding to grace that there was no sin at all in them, and consequently no struggle between the flesh and the spirit [Gen. 1:27; cf. Wis. 2:23]. They had no repugnance to nor aversion for good, no desire nor inclination for evil; all in them was tranquil and peaceful; they enjoyed unparalleled happiness and peace; they lived in the greatest purity and innocence — not in a simple purity and innocence, but adorned with grace. The Lord placed them in this condition in Paradise and gave them but one commandment and prohibition: They were not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad; if they ate of it they would die.

 

Now Satan, that wicked spirit who had hurled himself down from Heaven by a disobedience proceeding from his self-love and self-esteem, envious of the beauty of human nature, planned to make it fall from this original justice which made it so beautiful and pleasing. Since self-love and self-esteem had caused his own disobedience, and, consequently, his damnation, he presented the same temptation to our first parents to see whether, with such a ruse, self-love and vain esteem would take hold on them as they had on him. This is why he took the form of a serpent, twined himself around a tree, and addressed himself first to Eve as to the weaker of the two, reasoning thus: "Why did God put you in this place and say you were not to eat from any of the trees that are here?" She answered him thus, surely frightened and trembling: "He has not forbidden us to eat of all the fruits, but only of this tree must we not eat, nor touch it."

 

A great temptation this — for it was a temptation to disobedience! Notice the malice and ruse of this infernal and lying spirit. "Why," he asks, "did God say you were not to eat of any of the trees?" Do you not see how he exaggerates God's prohibition? God had not forbidden them to eat of any of the trees, but only of one; but the devil spoke thus to Eve intending to make her hate the commandment of the Lord; and this hatred is a great temptation against obedience, for the first degree of disobedience is hatred of the thing commanded. Lucifer, in his fall, began by a disgust for the commandment before his actual disobedience; that is why, knowing the strength of this temptation, although he knew that God had not forbidden our first parents to eat of any of the trees, he did not hesitate to say it to them in order to make them hate the command.

 

Please notice how this temptation increases with Eve's reply: "We may eat indeed," she said, "the fruit of the trees, except that of the Tree of Knowledge, which we must not eat or touch. You ask me why? It is," she adds, "lest perhaps we die." Notice the woman's great lie. True, God had forbidden them to eat of the fruit of this tree, but not to touch it or look at it—of this He had said nothing. It was a lie as great as that of the evil spirit when he asked why God had forbidden them to eat from any of these trees. The aim of his temptation from the first was to get Eve to make this reply, for by it she manifested disgust and hatred, as if she had said; "He has not only forbidden us to eat of it, but even to touch it and consequently to even look at it—a very strange and severe thing." Behold disgust and hatred for obedience, which is, as we have shown, the first degree of disobedience.

 

We see also that all the wretched who are lost by withdrawing from the Church experience this disgust and hatred for the commandments. For example, God has ordained that priests and ecclesiastics keep inviolate chastity and virginity; but the devil comes to ask: "Why was this commandment made?" And thus he succeeds in making many hate it, and persuades them to withdraw from the Church that they may be freed from the obligation of observing it. Another will come to hate fasting or confession, and because of this hatred he also will go forth from the pale of Holy Church, and write against these precepts according to his passion. A great misfortune this, which happens only too frequently in these times of ours.[8]

​

I will give you a few examples to show you how great this temptation is. A father or a mother will forbid their daughter to go to a ball or a carnival or to associate with certain company. Hating this prohibition, she says: "I do not dare to think about a ball or carnivals. I do not dare to lift my eyes to look at a man; it would be better to have my eyes sewed up or plucked out or covered up like those of hawks."[9] Another professes to be a good Christian. He will say to himself: "It is Lent now and I must fast because it is a commandment of the Church; oh, I shall do so, but if I were Pope I should do away with Lent so that it would no longer be necessary to fast." And what is this but evidence of a dislike for the commandment? We observe it because it is of obligation, but we by no means like it, and if we could we would abolish it. A sister who does not like silence will say freely: "Oh dear! So much silence, what is the use of it? Would it not be better at this time to talk than to keep silence? Now that I have such an excellent thought it would do me so much good to tell it; it would give so much pleasure to those who heard it, and it is not permitted to tell it! Moreover, if I wait half an hour I will not remember it or know what it is." See how the dislike for silence makes her talk?

 

Another who does not like to go to the Office at the appointed times will be enjoying some good thought in her cell, and there it is: the bell that calls her to the Office. "Oh dear!" she will think, "wouldn't it be better not to go to Office? For in my cell I was enjoying such a beautiful thought; perhaps if I had remained a little longer I should have been rapt in ecstasy, and now I must go to the choir to sing." We ought to remain at table in silence until the end of the meal to hear the reading that is made there. "Oh dear, what is the use of all this? Would it not be better to go out when one has finished?" In short, it is a dislike of the commandments that makes us reason thus, and that makes us fail in obedience.

 

But the sacred Virgin voluntarily subjected herself to the law of purification because she loved the commandment, and the thing commanded was so precious to her. Although she was not obliged to it, she did not hesitate to fulfill it because of the love she had for obedience and for God who had given this commandment.[10] But, O most holy Lady, you have no need of it. "It is true," she replies; "but other women, for whom I should serve as an example, need it; I obey this law as much for the profit of those who are bound by it as because of the love I bear it."

 

Oh, how happy are those who love God's commandments and who keep not only those they are obliged to keep, but also those to which they are not bound, subjecting themselves for the good and edification of others [Cf. 1 Cor. 10:22-24]. It was this love that the sacred Virgin had for obedience and for the edification of the neighbor that made her submit to the law of purification.

 

The second temptation, or the second degree of the temptation to disobedience (I had intended to say three, but I will speak of only two), is the contempt not only for the commandment, but also for him who commands. Now when the temptation goes so far as to make us hate the one who commands, it is dangerous and extremely bad,[11] above all when it makes us say that he who commands has no reason for giving this command, that it is not to the purpose, and when it makes us utter words of contempt for the thing commanded or counselled because of the hatred we have for him who has commanded it.

 

I know indeed that we can have repugnances and aversions not only for the command, but also for those who command; but to comment or to entertain the thoughts suggested by these repugnances and aversions: This we should never do. However, it was at this that the evil spirit aimed, and for this reason he asked Eve, all the while despising the Lord's command: "Why did God give you this command?" He implies the question: "For what reason has He placed you in this paradise and forbidden you to eat of any of the trees that are here?" But he was a great liar, seeing that God had not given such a prohibition; and surely if He had done so it would seem to be intolerable, for to place a man and woman in a beautiful orchard full of fruit and command them not to touch a one of them would have been a very difficult command to observe.

 

Now, God did not enjoin this upon them; but the evil spirit said it in his contempt for God and with the intention of making Eve contemn Him. She in her turn did arrive at contempt for Him who gave them the command, and answered the tempter; "We may not eat of this fruit or, according to the words of the Lord, we may die." She said this by way of contempt for God. "He has threatened us," she would give him to understand, "with death if we eat of it; but what reason had He for such a threat against us?" Yet He did say: "lest you die." Do you see how these words of Eve manifest contempt? For God had not only said that they must beware of eating of this fruit for fear of death, but He had expressly declared that if they ate of it they would die. So much for the second degree of disobedience.

 

But our "new Eve," namely the sacred Virgin, loved, as we have already said, not only the commandment but Him who gave it. That is why she went up to Jerusalem to be purified, even though she was not subject to the law of purification. Without doubt she would have found more consolation in remaining in the poor cave of Bethlehem with her sacred Infant, continuing there the sweet and holy colloquies which took place between that Son and that Mother; but as she was truly obedient she showed no preference for one commandment more than for another, but submitted herself to them all indifferently—for true children of God do not choose which commands they will observe. It is the way of heretics to make such a choice; That is why they are called "heretics."[12]

 

But among Christians there must never be choice in what they are to believe and observe; they must simply believe. What must they believe? Everything, without exception. Nevertheless, we do find heresies of a sort among Christians — not indeed heresies of doctrine such as those of the heretics who are out of the Church, but heresies of disobedience committed by those Christians who wish to be good but who, despite that, are willing to obey only those commandments which please them.[13] You will see some who, in their love of fasting, would wish to fast even on Easter Sunday. Other such foolishnesses, no longer existing today, were seen in other ages. Some like the discipline, others the hair shin; they want to do things which are counselled but not those that are commanded; they are willing to fast on Easter Sunday, which the Church does not command, but are unwilling to fast on Ash Wednesday! Oh no, we must not go to either extreme but must take the middle course, which is to obey without choice or preference.

 

There are other forms of the "heresy" in obedience: when we choose what we will observe; when we are unwilling to obey all kinds of commandments. It is this absolute and total obedience that places religious above even hermits and anchorites who lead a life in solitude that is more admirable than imitable. Is it not a wonderful thing to see St. Paul the Hermit dwelling in the midst of the desert, housed in a cave like a beast, his only nourishment bread and water? Yes, such things are admirable. Yet with all that, the saint had the use of his own liberty, a fact which lessened to some extent the austerities he performed, since in this manner of life he still exercised some choice and labored for his own particular salvation alone. I know well that he prayed for the whole world and that his prayers were very beneficial to humanity. Nevertheless it is an incontestable fact that religious perfection, that is to say, the manner of life of religious who are under obedience, far surpasses that of anchorites, for their obedience must be total and admit of no exception; they have no use of their liberty in the choice of their exercises, but rather submit themselves to the observance of their Rules and Constitutions and to the particular directions of their superiors. So much for the second name given to today's feast.

 

I must say a word on the third title given to this day, namely, the Feast of St. Simeon the Just. It is thus called because on this day that glorious saint received into his arms Him whom he had so longed for, but with joy and consolation so great that, having now nothing more to hope for and seeing his end near, he sang like a divine swan that beautiful canticle: Now, Master, You can dismiss Your servant in peace, for my eyes have witnessed Your saving deed.

 

To explain this third title I shall give you a very profitable example; and although I have alluded to it before in this place, I do not hesitate to offer it to you again inasmuch as many who are before me now were not present then. Besides, we do not, when speaking of the same subject, always say the same thing. The fact is this: Our Lord, seeing a little child one day, picked him up, kissed him and showed him to the Apostles, saying: I tell you solemnly, unless you become like this little child you will never enter Paradise. [Mt, 18:2-3; Mk. 9:35]. Many say that this child was St. Martial, who later became Bishop of Limoges; but the more common opinion is that it was St. Ignatius the martyr, whose feast we celebrated yesterday and whose Office is transferred to tomorrow. Oh, how blessed was this glorious St. Ignatius, since he was taken up into Our Lord's arms and given as an example to the Apostles! How precious and sweet was that kiss! What sacred, secret words Our Lord said to this happy child as He kissed him! How blessed he was to allow himself to be carried and handled by the Saviour, who rewarded him by engraving His own sacred Name in the depths of his heart!

 

Now tell me, please, whom do you consider to have been the happier: St. Ignatius, who was carried in Our Lord's arms, or St. Simeon the Just, who carried Our Lord in his arms? Tell me, which would you prefer: to be carried by this dear Saviour as was St. Ignatius, or to carry Him in your arms as did Simeon? Surely both were very happy —  St. Ignatius in being handled and carried not where he willed but where it pleased Our Lord, and St. Simeon in carrying in his arms Him who produced such great happiness that he shed upon this Divine Saviour abundant tears of sweetness and consolation. But if you had to choose, which would you prefer? Think about it, for it will be a very useful reflection; and afterwards I will tell you my choice.

 

The great St. Ignatius was very happy in being carried in the arms of the Saviour and no longer walking with his own feet, but with those of Our Lord; for he who is carried walks not with his own feet but rather with the feet of him in whose arms he is carried. Oh, how happy is the soul who no longer journeys with his own feet, that is to say, according to his own thoughts and desires, nor according to his own preferences and inclinations! For the soul has spiritual feet as well as the body. How happy that soul when it no longer journeys according to its own desires, but rather according to those of its God. Now what are the desires of God but the commandments in which His will is expressed? And all are comprised in this first: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and your neighbor as yourself [Dt. 6:5; Mt. 22:37-39]. From this come all the others: You shall not kill, you shall not steal [Ex. 20:13,15], and the rest which imply that you shall not do to your neighbor what you would not want done to yourself. There is no need then of putting ourselves to the trouble of trying to find out what are the desires of God, for they are all expressed in His commandments and in the I counsels Our Lord Himself gave us in the Sermon on the Mount when He said: How blest are the poor in spirit, blest are the lowly, and the other beatitudes [Matt. 5:3-10]. These are all the desires of God upon which we ought to walk, following not only His precepts but also His counsels and intentions as perfectly as we can.[14] This is what we do when we obey the general inspirations which are indicated in the Rules and Constitutions, as well as the particular and secret ones which He places in the depths of our hearts. But to walk securely according to the divine desires, we must be simple and sincere in our efforts to discover them, and we must follow the direction given us about them. By this means we shall be carried by Our Lord and shall walk no more according to our own desires, but according to those of God.

 

The glorious St. Simeon also was very happy to carry the Saviour in his arms. I will suggest two ways in which we carry Him and then I will conclude. The first is to bear Him upon our shoulders as did St. Christopher; the second is to hold Him in our arms as did St. Simeon and Our Lady. Surely, although St. Christopher carried Our Lord only on his shoulders, yet he was highly favored, and merited to be called the Christ-bearer. Now, to carry Him in this way is nothing else than willingly to endure and suffer with a good heart all that it pleases Him to send us, however difficult and heavy be the charge and burden that God places upon our shoulders. How can His yoke be easy [Mt. 11:30] if we imagine ourselves exempt from suffering? No, we must — like St. Christopher — carry Our Lord on our shoulders, enduring all that He pleases, in the way He pleases, and for as long as He pleases, abandoning ourselves entirely to His eternal Providence, allowing ourselves to be governed and led according to His holy will.

 

The second way is to carry Him as did Our Lady and St. Simeon. We do this when we endure with love the labors and pains He sends us, that is to say, when the love which we bear to the Law of God makes us find His yoke easy and pleasing, so that we love these pains and labors, and gather sweetness in the midst of bitterness. This is nothing else but to carry Our Lord in our arms. Now if we carry Him in this way, He will, without doubt, Himself carry us.

 

Oh, how happy we shall be if we allow ourselves to be carried by this dear Lord, and if we carry Him on our shoulders as did St. Christopher and in our arms as did St. Simeon, abandoning ourselves entirely to Him and letting Him lead us where He pleases! Leave yourselves, then, entirely in the arms of His Divine Providence, submitting yourselves in what concerns His Law and disposing yourselves to endure all the pains and suffering that may come to you in this life. When you have done this you will find that the hardest and most painful things will be rendered sweet and agreeable to you, and you will share the happiness experienced by St. Simeon and St. Ignatius. But as to which of these was the happier, that is not for me to say; I leave that to you to think upon and decide for yourselves. Only try to imitate them in this life and you will bless the Saviour and be blessed by Him in Heaven, together with these glorious saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] St. Francis de Sales considers the Feast of Meeting as a variation on the second name, the Purification of the Virgin.

[2] The Feast of the Purification traditionally ends the Christmas season.

[3] Cf. Sermon for July 2, 1621.

[4] St. Francis is following here the cosmology of Aristotle.

[5] Cf. Treatise on the Love of God, Book 10, Chapter 17.

[6] Cf. Sermon for February 2, 1620.

[7] Cf. Sermon for July 2, 1621.

[8] St. Francis is alluding, of course, to the Reformation and to the challenges made to priestly celibacy, religious life and many of the Sacraments and precepts of the Roman Catholic Church.

[9] Cf. Conferences, XII, "On Simplicity."

[10] Cf. Conferences, XIII, "On the Spirit of the Rules”; Sermon for Nov. 21, 1620.

[11] Cf. Conferences, I, "Obligation of the Constitutions."

[12] St. Francis de Sales is alluding here to the root meaning of the word "heretic," which is "to choose.

[13] Cf. Treatise on the Love of God, Book 10, Chapter 9.

[14] Cf. Treatise on the Love of God, Book 9, Chapter 4; Conferences, V, "On Generosity."

​

​

Back to Top

​