WDTPRS – – 17th Sunday after Pentecost – Diabolical Contagion

falling into hellIs this prayer appropriate today or what?!?

It seems to me that we can see what we are praying against at nearly every level of the Church today.  Some are witless about it, others are witting.  Among the witting, some are unwilling and others most willing.

Am I wrong?

No, of course I’m not wrong.

This Sunday’s Collect prayer – in the Vetus Ordo:

Da, quaesumus, Domine, populo tuo diabolica vitare contagia: et te solum Deum pura mente sectari.

Here is Sunday’s Collect for the 17th Sunday after Pentecost.

Da, quaesumus, Domine,
populo tuo diabolica vitare contagia:
et te solum Deum pura mente sectari.

So dense!  Concise.

The phrase diabolica vitare contagia is a glory of the Latin Church’s millennial life of prayer.

Note the wonder assonance and the separation of diabolica from contagia by the verb, a use of hyberbaton.

This Collect, used for centuries in the post-Tridentine Missale Romanum, is in ancient prayer books such as the Liber Sacramentorum Gellonensis, a form of the Gelasian Sacramentary.  It appears as the Collect for the Sunday after the Autumn Ember days (Spring in the Southern climes, though that wasn’t a consideration of the ancients).  As such, it would have been a time of prayer and fasting and for ordinations.

Let’s check our vocabulary to see if we can find treasures beneath the surface.

I am sure you know the words “contagion” and “contamination”.  In Latin we have, as our steadfast Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us, feminine contagio, onis, and neuter contagium, ii, or contamen, inis, which mean “a touching, contact, touch, in a good or bad sense”.  It comes then to indicate “a contact with something physically or morally unclean, a contagion, infection” and thence “an infection, pollution, vicious companionship or intercourse, participation, contamination, etc.”.  Surely those of you who were educated by the sisters or brothers lo those many moons ago in Catholic schools were warned to “avoid the company of bad friends”.  Not only is your reputation tainted with their stains but you subject yourself to their “contamination” and the near occasion of sin.

Go with bad friends, and you go down.

We won’t get into the complicated idea of mens, which can mean “mind”, but also “heart, soul”, in fact the whole of the human person in some contexts.  But we can glance at purus, the adjective for, basically, “clean, pure, i. e. free from any foreign, esp. from any contaminating admixture”.  Obviously, this can refer not only to physical cleanliness, but also moral faultlessness.  There are juridical and religious overtones as well.  For example, for the ancient Romans a thing which is purus, such as a locus purus, a “pure place”, was not just undefiled, it was unconsecrated, not sacer.  On the other hand, purus does also mean “undefiled”, in the sense that nothing dead had been there.  There had never been a funeral or burial, etc.  It is interesting how the Romans got down to brass tacks.

Then we have the verbs vitare and sectari.  While a sector, m. – the noun – is a “cutpurse”, the sort of bad friend you don’t want to follow around, the verb sector, deponent (passive form but active meaning) is “to follow continually or eagerly, in a good or bad sense; to run after, attend, accompany; to follow after, chase, pursue”.   On the other hand, a vitor is, in fact, just a “cooper; basket-maker”. We are interested in vito, which is not the name of a character in The Godfather (well… it is and it isn’t).  The verb vito means “to shun, seek to escape, avoid, evade”.  The word sort of looks like it should be related to something having to do with “life”, vita.  In reality, however, vito is shortend from vicito, having the root vic-, related to the ancient root wik in Greek eikô (“to yield”).

The important thing to follow, and not avoid, is that in our prayer there are contrasting pairs: contamination v. purity, avoidance v. association.

Each pair reveals our need to make choices and to persevere in what is right.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

Grant, O Lord, unto Your people, to shun diabolical contamination: and with a pure soul to follow You, the only God.

As you can guess, this collect did not survive the scalpel-wielding experts of the Consilium, who sliced and diced our orations under the surveillance of the late then-Fr. Annibale Bugnini.   So, dreary!  All that out-dated stuff about the devil.  It was not in the typical edition of 1970 or the edito altera of 1975.

Then a miracle occurred.

The third edition, the 2002 Missale Romanum includes this Collect, though in nearly complete obscurity.   It took me a while to hunt it up in the 2002MR.  If you are interested, look in the section Missae et orationes pro variis necessitatibus vel ad diversa, subsection Ad diversa, 48. In quaecumque necessitate, scheme “C”, “Aliae orationes (shortcut, go to p. 1152).  The 1970 and 1975MR, both, had two schemes for Masses In quacumque necessitate (“In whatever necessity”). In the 2002MR a third was added.

The redactors of the newest edition added quite a few things, such as new schemes for vigils of important feasts and the “Prayer over the People” on the days of Lent.  It is as if they recognized that too much had been lost to the Novus Ordo.

Please, Leo!  Over turn Taurina cacata!

CURRENT ICEL (2011):

Grant, we pray, O Lord, that your people may avoid the contagion of the devil and follow you, the only God, in purity of heart.

As I read and reread the Latin, and then the literal English version, the Biblical imagery of faithlessness as “adultery” or “prostitution” came to mind.  The relationship between the People and God was conceived as an exclusive covenant like a marriage bond.

When the People of Israel were faithless to God they are described as “going with”, so to speak, false idols, “whoring after” other gods.  Think for a moment of Jeremiah 3:6-11 wherein the people go up the mountains or under every tree like a prostitute.  

Could that pertain to some leaders and assemblages of God’s Holy People today?

I digress.

It seems to me that we are dealing in this prayer with the time-hallowed warning of Christians to shun the three great temptations that corrupt the rational soul (mens) and pull it away from communion with the Holy Trinity.  The three contaminations – present in the Lord’s temptations in the wilderness – are mundus, caro et diabolus, “the world, the flesh, and the devil”.

A solid reference to the trio is found in a sermon of a pseudo-Augustine, but it becomes a solid reference in late-antique and mediaeval spiritual thought.  The influential theologian Peter Abelard (+1142) puts it succinctly in his Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer: “Tria autem sunt quae nos tentant, caro, mundus, diabolus… For there are three things which try us: the world, the flesh, the devil” (petitio vi).  St. Bernard of Clairvaux (+1153) speaks of this deadly trio, as does St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274).  It is no surprise that the post-Tridentine Missale would include this prayer, for this was part of the warp and weft of Catholic spirituality.

The Sixth Session of the Council of Trent wrote, with heavy reliance on St. Paul, in its 1547 Decree on Justification about perseverance:

He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved, (Matt 10:22; 24:13) which cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him who is able to make him stand who stands, (Rom 14:4) that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him who falls, let no one promise himself herein something as certain with an absolute certainty, though all ought to place and repose the firmest hope in God’s help.  For God, unless men themselves fail in His grace, as He has begun a good work, so will He perfect it, working to will and to accomplish. (Phil 1:6, 2:13)  Nevertheless, let those who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall, (cf. 1 Cor 10:12) and with fear and trembling work out their salvation, (Phil 2:12) in labors, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayer, in fastings and chastity. For knowing that they are born again unto the hope of glory, ( cf. 1 Pet 1:3) and not as yet unto glory, they ought to fear for the combat that yet remains with the flesh, with the world and with the devil, in which they cannot be victorious unless they be with the grace of God obedient to the Apostle who says: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die, but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. (Rom 8:12ff)

The language, and therefore the concepts, of those formative ages of our Catholic faith and spirituality are very much at risk today.  But it is being recovered and reconsidered, especially in the wake of Pope Benedict’s efforts to reinvigorate our Catholic identity in continuity with our profound past.

Of course, there are those who vigorously seek to snuff out all mention of these categories. It is unfashionable in many circles to speak things so distasteful as the sort of temptation to which you can’t, with just a sly wink and hint of naughty struggle, simply give into along with everyone else.

To remind people of sin, guilt, and their eternal consequences is now rude, especially from pulpits in many parishes and cathedrals.  If you speak of the devil and sinful temptations, and the contamination of the soul – as if it isn’t always and automatically pure – you are considered a throwback to an era before modern man grew up.

“No longer do we grovel!  The old bogey-devil won’t drive us down to our knees!  (But then neither does the Blessed Sacrament.)  How feudal! I choose what my boundaries are.  I choose when to receive Communion, with our without reference to the “official” church.”

As a consequence, what sense does it make in some circles now to speak of “perseverance”?

When we are our gods, what sense does it make to speak of all these distasteful, outdated categories with which shriveled up old men tried to scare us, as a wicked uncles might terrify mere children?

I respond saying that the Enemy of the soul seeks our destruction. 

He seeks to thwart God’s design and our own best destiny of bliss in heaven by guiding us away from the only God down into false gods, created things. The Enemy seeks to accompany us, lead us, delicately into the ways of the world of which he is the prince, tempt us in our appetites and passions, so hard to control after the Fall he originally provoked, draw you into infidelity.

And for what?

In his eternal sickness of angelic malice Satan yearns to crow over your fallen soul, damned to eternal separation from God in Hell amidst the unending agony to boom heavenwards in his own twisted oration: “SEE! Here’s another victory You will now not have!”

Each day sets choices before us.  Most of the time they are rather simple, even black and white. Only rarely are we ever truly at a loss as to what is right or what is the wrong thing to do.  Our habits and passions make our choices more difficult, as does the wound to our intellect.

But Holy Church gives us the guidance of authority, which steers our still marvelous ability to reason.  We have not just intellect, but our Faith as well.  We are not alone. God gives us graces.

Today’s prayer gives us insight in an important dimension of our lives: contamination in sin v. purity with God – avoidance of sin and the Enemy v. association with God.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, WDTPRS |
Leave a comment

NEW BOOK about how the Novus Ordo Lectionary came to be with its cycles and edits of Scripture

For Catholics, the consequential impact of the nearly complete obliteration of the cycle of readings for Holy Mass in the Latin Church, and the imposition of an entirely novel (which the Council Fathers explicitly forbade) set of two cycles cannot be exaggerated.

Four immediate criticisms come to mind.

Putting aside the specious claim that having more Scripture at Mass must be better,

a) the introduction of a third reading from the Old Testament on Sundays and major holy days, placed a burden on priests which 90% were incapable of dealing with coherently,

b) the multiplication of Scripture on Sundays gave the first part of Mass a overly didactic atmosphere, which is not the point of liturgy,

c) the greater emphasis on Scripture served for many as a tool to deemphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass, particularly in setting up an ambo against the altar, whereas the altar had been the privileged place for the priest to read Scripture because it, too, was a like a sacrificial offering,

d) more Scripture, great – however, under the older scheme the repeated readings every year ensured that people would remember well an importance core of readings.

Matthew Hazell has published the working papers of the groups which from Vatican II onward completely overhauled the book for readings at Mass, the Lectionary.

BTW… the great criminal Bugnini had sworn that never again would a priest be able to say Mass with just one book, so the Lectionary was massively expanded and separated from the Missal, or “Sacramentary”.  An ancient idea which he archeologized into a weapon against the Roman Rite.

The amazing Matthew Hazell has in the past issued a book tool that I use almost every week.

For the readings of the Vetus Ordo…

Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite (Lectionary Study Aids) (Volume 1)

US HERE – UK HERE

He now has another published by Os Iusti 

The Post-Vatican II Reform of the Lectionary: The Schemata of Group XI
Translated, with an Introduction, by Matthew P. Hazel

I won’t go into the weeds with this.  It is an important book, but not for everyone.  It isn’t light reading.  However it get’s you into the mind of the engineers of the massive rupture in the post-Conciliar liturgy which we are still sorting out today.

That said, here is a little excerpt from the Introduction which caught my eye on p. xxii:

Each coetus [scholarly committee] had a relator and a secretary, along with several consultors as members, as well as advisors who worked either on a regular or occasional basis for the coetus depending on their availability. Various schemata relating to the work of each study group would be drafted, consulted on, discussed,
redrafted, and so on as necessary. When a schema was deemed to be ready, it
would be discussed at a meeting of all the relators (the coetus relatores) and,
if necessary, be sent back to the study group for redrafting or to incorporate
the suggestions of the relators. Finally, the fully-prepared schemata would be
presented to the Fathers of the Consilium for their examination and voting,
then to the Holy Father for definitive approval, promulgated, and published.

This method of working was, in principle, thorough and well-organised.
It has, however, come under some severe criticism over the decades that
followed, including from those who were themselves involved in the work
of the Consilium and came to view its secretary in particular as a deleterious
influence on the reforms. In his memoirs, Rev Fr Boniface Luykx, appointed
as a consultor in May 1964, had this to say about Bugnini:

He seemed to me very impressionable: if someone pushed him one way, he
went that way; if someone pushed him the other way, he went there instead.
But Father Bugnini was also a politician, and one who wanted power. In
order to gain power he had to appear successful, so he went along with those
who were the most vocal and apparently powerful. He was heavily influenced
by those who broke from fidelity to [Sacrosanctum Concilium]… Before long,
Bugnini stopped inviting to the meetings those “reactionary” members who
dared to adhere to the text of [the Constitution] or to sound principles
of religious anthropology. . .
[I]t became apparent that his opinion about the supremacy and normative value of modern Western man was part of his agenda —and consequently part of the agenda of the Consilium’s subcommissions he oversaw.

It is also worth noting that the Consilium’s working method was designed at the
outset to garner consensus quickly; Bugnini himself was quite open about this.
This had the clear benefit of accelerating the process, but did not encourage the
kind of careful, detailed and patient study of questions that, in hindsight, was
perhaps necessary for large parts of the liturgical reform. Luykx also questions
how much oversight and scrutiny the Fathers of the Consilium really had over the
many schemata given to them by ‘experts’ at meetings with very tight timescales.

Bugnini… arch-criminal of the post-Conciliar reform.

Posted in REVIEWS, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged
Leave a comment

Daily Rome Shot 1074

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, and now also my late mother’s place.  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.  

Black to move and mate in 4.

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Leave a comment

GUEST POST: “Father Bob’s First Day on the Job”

A priest who has a site called The Roman Caller sent a short story about when married permanent deacons are at last ordained priests.

Here is at least the beginning of the short story.  A hapless, nearly completely uninformed married deacon has been pushed into ordination because the USCCB rammed it through.

There are too many permanent deacons who could plausibly have starred in this, but Fr. Tommy would have certainly stepped in with Bp. Fatty about this guy.

Here is his first Mass in the parish.

GUEST POST….

Father Bob’s First Day on the Job

Deacon… I mean FATHER Bob walked into the sacristy. It was two minutes before the Saturday evening Mass began, the first he would celebrate at his new parish. “Father,” asked one of the servers, “what color are we supposed to vest the chalice in?” Father Bob looked stunned. Normally he would have asked his pastor, Fr. Paul, that question, but ever since the USCCB called for more married priests, the scales were finally tipped, and the inevitable slippery slope that began with lay ministers, then married deacons, had finally concluded (for now) in the married priest!
Of course those good old celibate priests of yore are still respected (for now) and are still the only ones who can become bishops (for now), but this day is Fr. Bob’s first day on the job.
“Uhhhh, well, I like purple, so let’s do purple.”
Crisis averted.
“Father,” said the server again, “I don’t actually know how to set the chalice.”
Fr. Bob looked with horror at the unassembled chalice. He also had never set the chalice before. Fr. Paul had also performed that duty at his previous church.
“Just put a host on it, and we’ll not fiddle with the veil and the purse today.”
Fr. Bob smiled warmly at the server. Fr. Paul never did that. People always used to tell him to smile more. “Today, I’m going to give a good name to the formerly permanent deacons.”
The servers and Fr. Bob prayed and then processed to the back of the church. In the narthex, his wife was waiting for him, but her arms were crossed. “Here we go again,” said the newly ordained vir probatus.
“Bob,” she said loud enough for the ushers to hear, “is it purple season again already!? I always hated that robe. Can’t you just use a simpler one?”
Bob just shrugged and said nothing, as he typically did when his wife was in a mood. “Note to self: don’t wear the vestment with the floral pattern again.”
As he processed in, Bob was sure to bless the people. He had seen the bishop bless people at several Masses before, and after all, he was finally a priest. When he tried doing the same during Fr. Paul’s Masses, the priest would elbow him and whisper for him to stop. But Fr. Paul was no longer here. It was finally Bob’s time to shine.
As he arrived in the sanctuary, Bob gave a big smooch to the altar, and went to the chair to begin the Mass. “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. The Lord be with you!” The congregation responded, “and with your spirit.” Fr. Bob had waited long to finally say words he had not heard from a young priest’s mouth in so long, “Good morning, everyone!”
The parishioners chuckled a bit. Only a few said “good morning” back to the now-confused cleric. What was going on?
Fr. Bob then realized his flub. It was Saturday evening, rather than Sunday morning.
“Well, folks, times are a-changin’! First permanent deacons are becoming permanent priests and now evenings are turning into mornings. Do we not hear in the scriptures that in the Lord, the night is as bright as day?” A couple of people chuckled. Fr. Bob had recovered with ease.
Forgetting the penitential rite, Gloria, and collect Fr. Bob said, “let us be seated to hear the Word of God.” All sat down without so much as a peep. Perhaps the embarrassing introduction was penance enough.
As Fr. Bob listened to the readings, he thought about his homily. Bob would admit to himself and even to others that he was no theologian. Even having taken the classes in his deacon formation, he didn’t really understand the material, and the men were never really tested about these things. He was an electrical engineer by trade, not an academic, but, as the bishop put it, “we don’t need theologians to be permanent deacons, we need good men.”
And now he was the priest.
As he was thinking over all these things, Fr. Bob was suddenly snapped back to reality as the cantor began the Alleluia.
Bob read the Gospel as he had many times before in his ten years as a permanent deacon, and then began the homily. Over the next twenty minutes, Fr. Bob thrilled his parishioners with stories of his fishing expeditions, his son’s car breaking down, and his wife’s obsession with “couponing.” He finally ended his diatribe with a more or less theological thought, namely by telling the faithful of his parish how necessary it is to have a married priesthood.

[…]

Read the rest HERE

Posted in Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood |
Leave a comment

Daily Rome Shot 1073

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

White to move and mate in 4.

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

Meanwhile… what is this?

Never forget about what they think of you.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
10 Comments

Recent report of the “gift of tears” during Mass that was being live streamed

UPDATE: The priest in question issued (unnecessarily IMO) a statement that is now (unnecessarily IMO) on the archdiocesan website. HERE So much fuss about this could have been avoided if Mass were ad orientem and if more priests (and therefore people along the way), knew about the phenomenon of the “gift of tears” which sometimes priests receive as they say Mass. It’s not that rare. But, have it happen versus populum and all sorts of people, who have been more than partially starved for the transcendent in liturgical worship, get all worked up.

Anyway, I know that parish and its pastor. I understand that the priest is a solid guy. Friends… these things happen. They just do. It should be cause for a consoled smile, and that is about it.


ORIGINAL POST…

Recently there was a nasty desecration of the Most Precious Blood at a parish I know well in my native place. I wrote about it HERE.

Today, I am informed that an assistant priest at that parish received the “gift of tears” during Mass for the Exaltation of the Cross.  Video HERE

Some are circulating that it was a “Eucharistic miracle”.

NO. It wasn’t.

The “gift of tears” is a classic, spiritual locus for priests. There was a Votive Mass for the Gift of Tears. The title was changed to “for compunction of heart”. I wrote about that HERE.

There is more, but here is the Collect:

COLLECT

Omnipotens et mitissime Deus, qui sitienti populo fontem viventis aquae de petra produxisti: educ de cordis nostri duritia lacrimas compunctionis; ut peccata nostra plangere valeamus, remissionemque eorum, te miserante, mereamur accipere. Per Dominum.

O Almighty and most gentle God, who draw forth living water out of a rock for Thy thirsting people: draw now forth tears of compunction from the hardness of our hearts; so that we may be able to weep for our sins, and that we might merit, as Thou art merciful, their forgiveness.

Note the reference to God bringing forth water from the rock for the people in the wilderness.  See Exodus 17 and 1 Cor 10.

In any event, I am glad that this young priest had this experience.

I regret that Mass was not ad orientem.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood, SESSIUNCULA |
19 Comments

What’s the solution?

We need to Vatican II harder! If only we had even more catechesis about Vatican II! And MORE synodality and, now, “pastorality”!

Posted in The Coming Storm, The future and our choices, Women Religious |
8 Comments

ASK FATHER: Why is “Salome” at the foot of the Cross in the Introit for the Feast of the Sorrows of Mary?

ANTWERP, BELGIUM – SEPTEMBER 5: Crucifixion as part of Seven Sorrows of Virgin cycle by Josef Janssens from years 1903 – 1910 in the cathedral of Our Lady on September 5, 2013 in Antwerp, Belgium


From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Hello Father, I was making a typo correction to this Mass when I noticed that the Introit (John 19, 25) has Salome at the foot of the Cross. Seemed unlikely to me, so I looked at the Gospel (John 19: 25-27) – no Salome. So I looked at the Vulgate, no Salome. Confused, I looked at divinumofficium.com which has the same inconsistency, ditto my Angelus Press 1962 Missal. So I have resorted to pestering you for some words of wisdom. Help!

So, how do we explain the inclusion of “Salome” in the Introit for the Feast of the Sorrows of the Virgin? The Introit is stated to be from John 19:25:

Stabant iuxta Crucem Iesu Mater eius, et soror Matris eius, María Cléophæ, et Salóme et María Magdaléne.

How does John 19:25 read?

The Vulgate of John 19:25 has:

Stabant autem iuxta crucem Iesu mater eius et soror matris eius, Maria Cleopæ, et Maria Magdalene.

The RSV says:

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag?dalene.

Thus “et Salomé” is a liturgical addition. The Gospel of the Mass later gives John 19:25 in its biblical form, without Salome. The Missal therefore clearly distinguishes between the scriptural lesson and the somewhat expanded, harmonized text of the Introit.

Salome comes from St. Mark’s Passion. Mark 15:40 names among the women watching the Crucifixion:

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome.

Matthew 27:56 gives the parallel list, but calls the third woman “the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

Hence, the harmonization identifies Salome as the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John.

The Introit therefore wove Mark’s Salome into John’s scene at the Cross. This sort of evangelical harmonization is not unusual in liturgical composition. The citation “John 19:25” identifies the principal source rather than claiming that every word is a literal quotation.

There is an additional wrinkle. John 19:25 is grammatically capable of being read as mentioning either three or four women. One interpretation takes soror matris eius, Maria Cleopae as one person: “His Mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas.” Another takes “His Mother’s sister” as an unnamed fourth woman, whom many commentators have proposed was Salome, the mother of St. John. The latter interpretation would make John the Blessed Virgin’s nephew or close relative. That reading has an attractive connection with Christ’s words immediately afterward, Ecce mater tua. But it remains an interpretation rather than a certainty.

So here Salome is a fourth woman added from the Synoptic Passion tradition, rather than being identified with Mary’s unnamed sister.

There is also a beautiful liturgical reason for expanding the company. On the feast of the Seven Sorrows, the Church deliberately gathers around the Cross the faithful women remembered across the Gospel accounts. They form, as it were, the little remnant of fidelity surrounding the Mater Dolorosa.

Mary stands at the center, but she does not stand utterly alone. Salome belongs to that circle of women who had followed Christ from Galilee and remained when so many others had fled.

St. Augustine himself explicitly wrestled with the apparent difference between John’s women iuxta crucem and Matthew and Mark’s women watching a longe, and harmonized the accounts rather than treating them as contradictory.

In sum, Salome is present because the Introit is a liturgical harmonization of the Passion narratives, principally John 19:25 but with more information from Mark 15:40. Salome’s presence in the Introit emphasizes the company of faithful women gathered about Mary and the Cross.

Posted in WDTPRS |
2 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 1072 – Procession

From The World’s Best Sacristan™ from the Procession for Exaltation of the Cross, with a relic of the True Cross of Our Lord.

And…

And…

Black to move and mate in 4.

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

Finally,

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
3 Comments

15 September: Seven Sorrows of Mary – The “Our Lady of Sorrows Project”

Today, the day after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, is the Feast of Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  There is an analogous commemoration on Friday after 1st Passion Sunday.

Some time ago, I wrote a series of reflections on the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin.  I invite you to have a look.

Our Lady of Sorrows Project

Here are links to the individual posts

1st Sorrow – The Prophecy of Simeon
2nd Sorrow – The Flight into Egypt
3rd Sorrow – The loss of the Child Jesus in Jerusalem
4th Sorrow – Mary meets Jesus on the way to Calvary
5th Sorrow – The Crucifixion of Jesus
6th Sorrow – The Piercing of the Side of Jesus, and His Deposition
7th Sorrow – The Burial of Jesus

At the famous Basilica in Rome, Santo Stefano Rotondo we find this well-known image:

Posted in Classic Posts, Linking Back, Our Solitary Boast | Tagged ,
1 Comment