St Dominic Loricatus: Butler's Lives of the Saints

Vespers of Wednesday for the Feast of St Callixtus, Pope & Martyr

From the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem. You may follow the Office at Divinum Officium.

Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III: XIV That Evil Is an Accidental Cause

From Contemplating History

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274), was a Doctor of the Church, Philosopher, Theologian, Jurist, Dominican Friar, and Priest. Known as Doctor Angelicus "Angelic Doctor," and the Doctor Communis "Universal Doctor" his writings serve as a defense and proof of the validity of Christ's authority over all. The Summa contra Gentiles (also known as Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium, "Book on the truth of the Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers"). The Summa contra Gentiles consists of four books. The structure of Saint Thomas's work is designed to proceed from general philosophical arguments for monotheism, to which Muslims and Jews are likely to consent even within their own respective religious traditions, before progressing to the discussion of specifically Christian doctrine.

Book III discusses providence and the human condition, that is good and evil acts, human fate and intellect and the relation of created beings to the creator. Whether you are a history enthusiast, a student of religion, or simply curious about the impact of the Roman Catholic Church on the world, this playlist is designed to provide an informative and engaging journey through its captivating past. Subscribe to the Contemplating History channel for more educational content and immerse yourself in the rich tapestry of history.

Alex Gómez-Marín, PhD - Transhuman Consciousness?

From Closer to Truth, a secular source.

What happens to consciousness in transhumanism? Would transhuman creatives have different conscious experiences? Would melding with machines change our inner sense of felt experience? How would we know? How would it matter? Alex Gómez-Marín is a Spanish physicist turned neuroscientist. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics and a Masters in biophysics from the University of Barcelona. He was a research fellow at the EMBL-CRG Centre for Genomic Regulation and at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown in Lisbon. His research spans from the origins of the arrow of time in inert systems, to the neurobiology of action-perception in living organisms such as flies, worms, mice, and humans.

The Holy Rosary

Wednesday, the Glorious Mysteries, in Latin with Cardinal Burke.

Did Richard III Want To Commit Incest With His Niece, Elizabeth of York?

From History Calling

Did Richard III want to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, despite the fact that it would have been an incestuous royal union and he was widely suspected of murdering her brothers, the Princes in the Tower? Or is this one of the greatest pieces of Tudor propaganda ever created, designed to destroy Richard III's reputation and strengthen the Tudor claim to the English throne? In this Plantagenet history documentary from History Calling on YouTube and Patreon, I look at one of medieval England's most sensational royal scandals; the rumours that Elizabeth of York and Richard III had an affair (a story spurred on by historical fiction writer, Phillipa Gregory) and that the last Plantagenet King wanted to commit incest with his niece, who ended becoming the wife of Henry VII and the mother of Henry VIII. I’ll look at the original historical sources including the letter in which Elizabeth of York supposedly said that she hoped to marry Richard, at Richard III’s official denial of any plans to marry her after the death of Anne Neville, his first (and only) wife and at what he said his actual plans were for the marriages of the daughters of Edward IV, who had been his older brother. Rather than repeating myths, this video separates fact from speculation by comparing contemporary evidence with later interpretations. Whether you believe Richard III was an ambitious king making a calculated political move or the victim of centuries of hostile propaganda, the historical record is far more complex than popular culture often suggests. If you're interested in Richard III, Elizabeth of York, the Wars of the Roses, medieval England, the Plantagenets, the Tudors, royal history, English kings and queens or historical mysteries, this video offers a balanced examination of one of the most controversial questions in English history. So if you enjoy carefully researched history that challenges popular assumptions while remaining faithful to the evidence, consider subscribing for more videos exploring the people, politics, and controversies that shaped medieval and early modern England and Britain.

Can Science and Catholicism Co-Exist? | The Story of God

From National Geographic, a secular source.

Morgan Freeman, James Younger and Lori McCreary discuss the intersection of science and Catholicism.

Is Making the Sign of the Cross Found in the Bible?

I'm an Eastern Catholic. Easterners make the Sign of the Cross "backwards", from right to left. Same Cross, same sacramental, different method.

From Aleteia

By Philip Kosloski

Christians have been making the sign of the cross over their bodies for centuries, and the practice has roots in the early Church.

One of the most distinctive practices of both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians is the making of the Sign of the Cross over one's body.

This custom is typically performed before and after prayer, though some cultures have extended its practice to before doing just about anything. This is one of the reasons why you might see a baseball player making the Sign of the Cross when he is preparing to hit the ball.

Yet, while this tradition has become an ingrained part of Catholic culture, many wonder about its origins and if it is found in the Bible.

A brief history of the Sign of the Cross

After Jesus was crucified on the cross, his early followers began to see the cross as a source of life and salvation. St. Paul wrote often about the cross of Christ in his letters and how it became a symbol of glory, "But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14).

What was a means of torture became a sign of eternal salvation. While this is now so normal to us we don't even think about it, initially it would have been a sign of faith in God's mysterious ways. To help us imagine it, perhaps think of wearing some other sign of torture and death as a symbol -- an electric chair, for example, or a noose.

However, early Christians realized that the cross was not only Jesus' "throne" but also has been beautifully and poetically foreshadowed in the Old Testament, particularly by the fact that Genesis places a tree in the Garden of Eden. It was through a tree that death arrived in God's creation, and through a tree (the cross) that life reclaimed us.

Biblical roots

Strictly speaking there is no instruction manual in the Bible that tells followers to make the Sign of the Cross over their bodies. However, St. John does note in the book of Revelation how Christians will be marked with a specific symbol on their foreheads, "they were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those of mankind who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads" (Revelation 9:4).

This may have been a reference to an earlier passage in the book of Ezekiel, where God said, "Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it" (Ezekiel 9:4).

That mark was believed to be the Greek letter tau, which is a T, and was quickly adopted by Christians to be related to the sign of the cross.

With this biblical background in mind, it shouldn't be a surprise that the early Christians would initially make the Sign of the Cross over their foreheads. Tertullian wrote in the 2nd century, "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross."

Gradually this motion of making the sign of the cross was extended, until it finally became a much larger motion that encompasses the head, shoulders, and chest -- as if we are clothing ourselves with the cross, or being embraced by it.

While the Bible does not specifically instruct Christians to make the sign of the cross, it is a custom that developed in the first few centuries of the Church and has biblical foundations that make it a potent tradition many Christians have incorporated into their daily lives.

Propaganda Outlet Officially Welcomes Leo XIV to the Political Establishment

All of his predecessors back to Pope Pius XII belonged, too.

Pope Leo XIV Diagnosed With Lung Cancer

Let us pray for our Pope, Leo XIV.

Medical professionals used the term 'malignant' to describe the tumour that was successfully excised.

The Medieval Peasant’s Alternative to Plastic Wrap

From Modern History TV

Jason Kingsley, CBE, the Modern Knight, demonstrates how medieval households utilised linen cloth treated with melted beeswax to cover containers and preserve food. This reusable, biodegradable alternative to modern plastics provided a fragrant and functional solution for keeping insects away and reducing evaporation.

Jason investigates what medieval peasants used instead of plastic wrap.

Traditional Catholic Morning Prayers in English | October

Traditional Catholic morning prayers to lay a strong foundation for the rest of your day! The month of October is dedicated to the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I hope these prayers increase your devotion to Our Lady of the Rosary this month, to help us meditate on the events in the life of Christ and draw us closer to her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Begin each day with morning prayer! This video is a compilation of many traditional evening prayers Catholics say, and should not be considered a replacement for those who have an obligation to pray the Divine Office morning prayers.

John 6 Is a Metaphor...So You Should Worship The Eucharist

From Shameless Popery

Joe examines what many Protestant apologists get right (and wrong) about John 6. Yes, Jesus is using metaphor. And that's why we should worship Him in the Eucharist.

St Elizabeth of the Trinity Taught Me How To Pray for Others in 7 Words

St Elizabeth of the Trinity wrote:  "I can't find words to express my happiness. Here there is no longer anything but God. He is All; He suffices and we live by Him alone" (Letter 91).

From Aleteia

By Elizabeth Scalia

The instruction comes from the insight: the person for whom we intercede is very much, every day and unquestionably, “the one Christ loves,” the indispensable individual unlike any other, whom Christ loves.

Thanks to Amazon.com’s helpful-if-slightly-terrifying record-keeping, I can tell you that it was in 2003 that I learned a new, and highly instructive, efficacious way to pray for the sick. That was the year I purchased Volume 2 of the Letters from Carmel from the (then) beata, (now the newest saint from coming to us out of Carmel) Elizabeth of the Trinity.

It was one of those books I couldn’t put down and when I finished it I felt like I’d had a personal, one-on-one tutorial on the subject of love: How to give it unstintingly, how to get more of it (see giving, unstintingly), because the more love you give, the more you get. Like an oil jar that never empties.

The tutorial included a lesson in prayer that I took deeply to heart as well, for as I read it became apparent that whenever Elizabeth was asked for prayers, she would immediately reach into scripture, and place herself with Martha and Mary, the beloved sisters of Lazarus who lived in Bethany. With them, she would petition Christ, beginning, “Lord, the one you love is sick...”

How often had I read those words in scripture, or heard them of a Sunday’s Gospel reading, and passed them by, assuming that they were simply a reporter’s narrative -- the words meant only for Lazarus, and provided to just move the story along.

But Elizabeth of the Trinity knew what I’ve too frequently forgotten: That every line of scripture is there for a purpose; none of it is accidental; none of it is meant to be passed over, sloughed off, or be left unconsidered, because together all of the lines give us the theology through which we come to better understanding, growth, increased nearness to Christ.

And so Elizabeth doesn’t pass over the lines; instead she sees their instruction and example -- their promise of powerful effect.

The instruction comes from the insight: the person for whom we intercede is very much, every day and unquestionably, “the one Christ loves,” the indispensable individual unlike any other, whom Christ loves.

The power comes from acknowledging that unconditional love, and claiming it with calm assurance and an expectation that Christ Jesus will neither deny nor ignore it. He cannot because he is Truth, and his love is true, too.

“Lord, the one you love is sick...”

When Mary and Martha sent these words to Jesus, he lingered where he was. He did not immediately heal his friend, because he was communicating the constant message of his own Crucifixion: that suffering -- which none of us escapes in this world -- is a component, perhaps a triggering component, of Glory, which comes with myriad answers and consolations. The glory is promised us, and the saints all tell it, if we only trust:

All of God’s purposes are to the good; although we may not always understand this we can trust in it. - St. Philip Neri

When Mary and Martha ran to Jesus, they were anxious, yet full of trust. “Lord, the one you love is sick...”

As I have written elsewhere, we can bring these words to all of our petitions:

My petitions sometimes seem endless, as though I am haranguing God: “Lord, the one you love is sick,” I will pray, or “Lord, the one you love is lonely,” or “Lord, the ones you love are enslaved by rage and hate.”

“Lord, the one you love is anxious...”

“Lord, the one you love is in danger...”

“Lord, the one you love is unemployed and feels rejected...”

“Lord, the one you love needs you...”

I cannot tell you how many times I have uttered some variation of these words at the start of a petition for a friend, and have later heard that at precisely that moment, there was an easement of suffering and anxiety. Perhaps healing did not come, but something of Christ did. “I felt it,” friends would say. “Suddenly, my wife said she felt upheld and comforted...”

And then I think, “Yes. That Elizabeth of the Trinity -- that little Carmelite -- she knew what she was doing...”

I love her.

The Aging Roman Curia: Who Replaces the Francis-Era Leadership?

From AdVaticanum

A big wave of turnover is coming to the Vatican. Right now, a lot of the prefects heading up the Roman Curia are getting up there in age…many are well past 75 and getting close to 80. Most of them were key Francis appointees who have been running their departments for years, but time is catching up, and fresh leadership is going to be needed soon. So I’m taking a look at at the current leadership situation in the Vatican, which key dicasteries are due for a shakeup, and my predictions for who might be named as the next prefects to take their place.

In Memoriam - Harold, Last King of the English

Harold, Last King of the English, R+I+P.

Died this day, Prídie Idus Octóbris, Anno Domini 1066, Harold Godwinson, last King of the English, on Senlac Hill, in the Land of the Haestingas, in the Kingdom of the English.

O God, Whose property is always to have mercy and to spare, we humbly beseech Thee for the soul of Thy servant Harold, which Thou hast commanded to depart out of this world, that Thou wouldst not deliver it into the hands of the enemy, nor forget it unto the end, but wouldst command it to be received by the Holy Angels, and conducted to Paradise, its true country; that as in Thee it hath hoped and believed, it may not suffer the pains of hell, but may take possession of eternal joys.

Through Christ our Lord who liveth and reigneth with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost.

Amen.

V. Requiem æternam dona ei, Domine

R. Et lux perpetua luceat ei:
V. Requiescat in pace.
R. Amen.

With the Saints give rest, O Christ, to the soul of Thy servant where there is no pain, nor sorrow, nor suffering, but life everlasting.
 
Memory Eternal!

A Catholic Defence of the British Monarchy

 "A state needs a degree of identification of the individual with the community, so that if one member is attacked, people ... have the feeling that they have been attacked themselves..."

From One Peter Five

By the Hon. Joseph Shaw, DPhil (Oxon), FRSA

The symbolism is a message.

In 2023 Angelico Press published A Defence of Monarchy: Catholics under a Protestant King, in which I and my co-contributors defended the British monarchy and the principle of monarchy in general. We did this in reaction to the attacks on both occasioned by the death of Queen Elizabeth II, in which even some of our fellow Traditional Catholics took part. We didn’t imagine the book would settle the argument, but we hoped, and we still hope, that it would help to clarify the issues.

Today, the focus of attention has moved on. Great Britain, like many countries in western Europe, is experiencing an escalating crisis of identity. One cause of this is the twenty years of large-scale immigration we have experienced. The other is the attitude of the mainstream political class, who suffer from the characteristic self-hatred of Liberal Western elites. To the growing number of people who are concerned that British culture and identity are under threat, the current governing class seems to be saying: if it is, that would be a good thing. As I write, British social media is gripped by the question of whether there is such a thing as the English or British race: whether, in fact, only those members of our multi-ethnic community who can trace their origins outside the island of Great Britain are entitled to an ethnic identity of any kind.

Where this ends, I do not know. What I do know, is what we need to hold on to if we are to avoid descending into civil strife, and what we would need to escape from that strife, should it start. A political community can only function if its members feel they have important things in common with each other. In fact, it would be better to say that a collection of people can only constitute a political community if they have important things in common with each other. A functional state is one in which, when one set of people are asked to make a sacrifice to benefit another set of people within the state, they have enough fellow-feeling to consider the pros and cons seriously. Without this it is politically impossible to build a motorway or a reservoir or a power station over the houses of people in one place to benefit people in another place; to tax the rich to help the poor; or to recruit strong young men to protect the old and the weak, not just of their own sub-group, but of the other people living in the country.

A state needs a degree of identification of the individual with the community, so that if one member is attacked, people from different parts of the country have the feeling that they have been attacked themselves, and so defending this perhaps distant member of the community is not just a matter of charity, but is felt to be more like self-defence.

In the recent media commemorations of the 9/11 attacks on its 25th anniversary, it was moving to hear recordings of President George W. Bush’s ‘Bullhorn Address’ when he visited the site of the Twin Towers. He pledged to bring the terrorists to justice, and the crowd shouted in response ‘U.S.A.! U.S.A.!’ That is solidarity. That is the mark of political community with the will to defend itself.

As a non-American I don’t claim to know what brings Americans together, but I know that there are things that do, because every real community has them. They consist of beliefs, values, cultural practices, loyalties, and a shared history. These things evolve over time, but should not do so too quickly or radically to prevent the people of today from maintaining a sense of common identity with previous generations. We don’t always recognise the importance of these things, and indeed they may not be important, taken individually: a common culture – which is what this is – is a matter of a lot of small things – as well as big things – that add up to a powerful whole.

Allow me to tell a largely American audience: the British monarchy is far more important to the British political community than most British people realise. It is, in itself, a big thing, but it also encapsulates and crystalises an enormous number of small things.

The monarchy encapsulates a great deal of traditional British culture and religion. British people are constantly reminded of the royal patronage of the arts, and the royal collection of art is on display in more than one location. The Coronation, and royal weddings, display the best of British embroidery, both old and new; they showcase fine British music and Britain’s military traditions; and they evoke its religious patrimony. These things are not museum pieces: in the workings of the monarchy, we see them not just on display, but in use.

The religious symbolism of the British coronation ceremony symbolises the way political authority comes from God. Some people object to this by saying that the leading figures of Britain’s political establishment are functionally Atheistic, but, insofar as this is true, it is regrettable but not the point. The symbolism is a message: a message that says to all that God is the King of Kings. If we are going to have an Atheist (or Hindu) Prime Minister, then it is better to oblige him to take part in a ritual that makes this point, than to allow him to make its denial the public message.

One very obvious thing about the monarchy is that it represents continuity with the past. It does this simply by existing, and would continue to do this if it became a stripped-down ‘modern’ monarchy as exists in some European countries. But British monarchy does it much better than these do, because the monarchy encapsulates continuity in a vast number of small things. The royal palaces, the ceremonies, the robes, the terminology, all remind us that Great Britain existed before yesterday: something many of our politicians would rather we forgot. Not only did it exist in the recent and in the distant past, but in important respects this Britain of the past was recognisable. It was the place we now call home, inhabited by people we share something with, whom we recognise and, up to a point, understand.

A related point is that in its political role, the monarchy emphasises the distinction between the government and the state. Public land is owned by ‘the Crown’: this is not the private property of the King, it is just what we call things owned by the state. Criminals are prosecuted by ‘the King’ – Rex vs. Smith – and that is not the same as someone being prosecuted by a government minister or even a government agency. When a single political party dominates the state for a long time, the distinction between the party of government and the government itself can wear a bit thin, but when a government becomes unpopular and falls, the King can appoint a new one. This is not a point about the King having freedom of action: it is a point about the nature of the institution. The King has no choice about it, generally speaking, but he represents what stays the same when an entire suite of ministers and advisors is replaced with another one.

Many of the critics of monarchy I found myself engaging with before and after the publication of the book seemed very reluctant to make a distinction between institutional authority and raw power. They couldn’t see the point of a king who did not have a great deal of political agency: who couldn’t exercise his personal preferences when asked to appoint people, and who was invoked in the passing of laws (‘the kings wills it!’ they say in Parliament) without him being personally involved. Those people must find it puzzling when a political party which had been in government has to leave office. Why don’t they just tell the police, the civil servants, the army and the judiciary to ignore the elections or the term limits or whatever?

The answer is that, unless they are revolutionary gangsters like the Bolsheviks, a political party which enjoys a spell in office owes its power, not simply to the voters, but to the institution of their country’s state and its constitution. The institution is bigger than they are, which is why they are able to run an entire country without armed opposition having won only 51% of the vote – or more like 40% in the multi-party British electoral system. By the same token, when the rules of the institution take power away from them, they have to go quietly. The judges and the army and the rest will now obey the new government, duly installed according to the rules.

In the British constitution, these rules are not embodied primarily in a codified constitution or a Supreme Court, but in the monarch. This means that the loyalty to the institution, which is so vital for the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, is not loyalty to a mere abstraction, or a historic document, or a set or rules, but to a person and a family: ‘the King and all his heirs and successors’, as the oath taken by British members of parliament has it. In this context, the fact that the king of the day has very limited political freedom of manoeuvre is not a disadvantage, but a huge advantage: he is not identified with a political party or a political programme, and the institution he represents can always repudiate one party or policy and try another, without losing its prestige and legitimacy.

The catastrophic loss of legitimacy which can be occasioned by the destruction of a country’s hereditary monarchy is illustrated again and again in history. The people of France, Russia, Austro-Hungary, China, and Brazil suffered through decades of instability, tyranny and bloodshed after losing their monarchs. Their subsequent sufferings make the imperfections and personal weaknesses of their past monarchs look like a golden age. In nearly every case, the revolutionaries imagined that the authority and prestige of the state would carry them through without an hereditary figure head, and were proved wrong when people even more cruel and ruthless than themselves put in place Mao’s maxim, that power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

The fact is that, in most places over history, power has not grown out of the barrel of a gun: the people with the guns have themselves been under the benevolent spell of loyalty to a person, a family, and an institution. Political stability, peace, and justice can be found when a person, family, and institution can be turned into a long-lasting, nation-defining monarchy, whose members see their role in serving their people, because it is this kind of institution that is best able to inspire loyalty.

We may have reason to remember these historical facts in the coming decades when, as seems increasingly likely, an entire political class, which has been in power for decades, is repudiated by voters across Europe. In what has turned out to be a relatively moderate form, this has already happened in Itay, and we are close to seeing it happen in France. The signs of it have appeared in Britain and in Germany. Something which understandably alarms the old elite is the prospect of new political movements restoring crumbling national solidarity by appeal to race. We must point out that they made this more likely by undermining the religious, cultural and institutional markers of their own societies which were not defined by race.

It we are to avoid civil disorder and a new, racist politics, we need to restore the importance and the prestige of those things which we have in common as nations, and which have the capacity to welcome all the people who live in it. In Britain at least, a key institution in this struggle is the monarchy. 

St Callixtus, Pope & Martyr

Today's Holy Mass from SSPX Australia. You may follow the Mass at Divinum Officium.

St Callixtus I, Pope and Martyr ~ Dom Prosper Guéranger

St Callixtus I, Pope & Martyr

From Dom Prosper Guéranger's Liturgical Year:

He was a sign of contradiction in Israel. In his own time, Christians were ranged either around him or against him. The trouble excited by his mere name sixteen hundred years ago was renewed in the middle of the nineteenth century by the discovery of a famous book, which gave an occasion to the sectaries of our own days to stand with those of old against Callixtus and the Church. The book, entitled Philosophumena or refutation of heresies, was composed in the third century; it represented Callixtus, whose life and character were painted in the darkest colors, as one of the worst corrupters of doctrine.

In that third century, however, the author of the Philosophumena, attacking the Pontiff he wished to supplant, and setting up in Rome, as he himself acknowledges, Chair against Chair, did but publish to the Church his own shame, by ranging himself among those very dissenters of whom his book professed to be the refutation and the history. The name of this first Antipope has not come down to us. But behold his punishment! The work of his envious pen, despised by his contemporaries, was to reappear at the right moment to awaken the slumbering attention of a far-off posterity. The impartial criticism of these latter ages, setting aside the insinuations, took up the facts brought forward by the accuser; and with the aid of science, disentangling the truth from among his falsehoods, rendered the most unexpected testimony to his hated rival. Thus once more iniquity lied to itself; (Psalm 26:12) and this word of today’s Gospel was verified: Nothing is covered that shall not be revealed; nor hid that shall not be known. (Matthew 10:26)

Let us listen to the greatest of Christian archæologists, whose mind, so sure and so reserved, was overcome with enthusiasm on finding so much light springing from such a source. “All this,” said the Commandant de Rossi on studying the odious document, “gives me clearly to understand why the accuser said ironically of Callixtus that he was reputed most admirable; why, though all knowledge of his acts was lost, his name has come down to us with such great veneration; and lastly, why, in the third and fourth centuries when the memory of his government was still fresh, he was honored more than any of his predecessors, or of his successors, since the ages of persecution. Callixtus ruled the Church when she was at the term of the first stage in her career and was marching forward to new and greater triumphs. The Christian faith hitherto embraced only by individuals, had then become the faith of families; and fathers made profession of it in their own and their children’s name. These families already formed almost the majority in every town; the religion of Christ was on the eve of becoming the public religion of the nation and the empire. How many new problems concerning Christian social rights, ecclesiastical law and moral discipline must have daily arisen in the Church, considering the greatness of her situation at the time, and the still greater future that was opening before her! Callixtus solved all these doubts; he drew up regulations concerning the deposition of clerics; took the necessary measures against the deterring of catechumens from Baptism, and of sinners from repentance; and defined the notion of the Church, which St. Augustine was afterwards to develop. (Philosophumena, lib ix. de Callisto) In opposition to the civil laws, he asserted the Christian’s right over his own conscience, and the Church’s authority with regard to the marriage of the faithful. He knew no distinction of slave and freeman, great and lowly, noble and plebeian, in that spiritual brotherhood that was undermining Roman society, and softening its inhuman manners. For this reason, his name is so great at the present day; for this reason, the voice of the envious, or of those who measured the times by the narrowness of their own proud mind, was lost in the cries of admiration, and was utterly despised.” (De Rossi, Bullettino, 1866:1, 2, 5, 6)

We have not space to develop, as it deserved, this masterly exposition. We have already seen how, when the virgin martyr Cæcelia yielded to the Popes the place of her first sepulcher, Callixtus, then deacon of Zephyrinus, arranged the catacomb of the Cæcilii for its new destiny. Venerable crypt, in which the State for the first time recognized the Church’s right to earthly possessions; sanctuary, no less than necropolis, wherein, before the triumph of the Cross, Christian Rome laid up her treasures for the resurrection day. Our great martyr-Pontiff was deemed the most worthy to give his name to this the principal cemetery, although Providence had disposed that he should never rest in it. Under the benevolent reign of Alexander Severus, he met his death in the Trastevere, in a sedition raised up against him by the pagans. The cause of the tumult appears to have been his having obtained possession of the famous Taberna meritoria, from the floor of which, in the days of Augustus, a fountain of oil had sprung up and had flowed for a whole day. The Pontiff built a church on the spot and dedicated it to the Mother of God; it is the basilica of St. Mary in Trastevere. Its ownership was contended for; and the case was referred to the emperor, who decided in favor of the Christians. We may attribute to the vengeance of his adversaries the Saint’s violent death, which took place close to the edifice his firmness had secured to the Church. The mob threw him into a well, which is still to be seen in the church of St. Callixtus, a few paces from St. Mary’s Basilica. For fear of the sedition, the martyr’s body was not carried to the Appian Way; but was laid in a cemetery already opened on the Aurelian Way, where his tomb originated a new historic center of subterranean Rome. (Lamprid. Alex. Savero. , Chap 19)

The following brief notice was drawn up at a period when the history of Callixtus was less known than at present.

Callixtus, a Roman by birth, ruled the church in the time of the emperor Antoninus Heliogabalus. He instituted the Ember days, on which four times in the year, fasting, according to apostolic tradition, should be observed by all. He built the basilica of St. Mary across the Tiber; and enlarged the cemetery on the Appian Way, in which many holy Pontiffs and Martyrs were buried; hence this cemetery is called by his name.

The body of the blessed Calepodius, priest and martyr, having been thrown into the Tiber, Callixtus in his piety caused it to be diligently sought for, and when found to be honorably buried. He baptized Palmatius, Simplicius, Felix and Blanda, the first of whom was of consular and the others of senatorial rank; and who all afterwards suffered martyrdom. For this he was cast into prison, where he miraculously cured a soldier named Privatus, who was covered with ulcers; whom he also won over to Christ. Though so recently converted, Privatus died for the faith, being beaten to death with scourges tipped with lead.

Callixtus was Pope five years, one month, and twelve days. He held five ordinations in the month of December, wherein he made sixteen priests, four deacons, and eight bishops. He was tortured for a long while by starvation and frequent scourgings, and finally, by being thrown headlong into a well, was crowned with martyrdom under the emperor Alexander. His body was carried to the cemetery of Calepodius, on the Aurelian Way, three miles from Rome, on the day before the Ides of October. It was afterwards translated into the basilica of St. Mary across the Tiber, which he himself had built, and placed under the high altar, where it is honored with great veneration.

The Holy Ghost, the protector of the Church, prepared thee by suffering and humiliation, to become his chosen auxiliary. Thou wast born a slave; Jewish perfidy soon spread snares beneath thy feet; and while still young thou wast condemned to the mines of Sardinia, for the Name of our Lord. Thou wast a bond-slave, it is true, but not now for thy former master. And when delivered from the mines at the time appointed by him who regulates circumstances according to his good pleasure, thou wast ennobled by the title of Confessor, which recommended thee to the maternal attention of the Church.

Such were thy merits and virtues, that Zephyrinus, entering upon the longest pontificate of the persecution period, chose thee for the counsellor, support, and coadjutor of his old age; and after the experience of those eighteen years, the Church elected thee for her supreme Pastor. At the hour of thy death, how prosperous didst thou leave this Bride of Our Lord! All the nobility of the ancient days, all the moral worth and intellectual eminence of the human race, seemed to be centered in her. Where was then the contempt of old, where the calumnies of a while ago? The world began to recognize in the Church the queen of the future. If the pagan state was yet to inflict cruel persecutions upon her, it would be from the conviction that it must struggle desperately for its very existence. It even hesitated, and seemed, for the moment, more inclined to make a compact with the Christians.

Thou didst open to the Church new paths, full of peril, but also of grandeur. From the absolute and brutal Non licet esse vos (It is not lawful for you to exist.) of the lawyer-executioners, thou wast the first to bring the empire to recognize officially, to a certain extent, the rights of the Christian community. Through thee, Cæcilia assured to them the power of assembling together, and making collections to honor their dead; thou didst consecrate to Mary, fons olei, the first sanctuary legally acquired by the Christians in Rome; and thou wast rewarded for the act by martyrdom. Now, far from compromising the least of God’s rights in coming to terms with Cæsar, thou didst, at that very time, oppose the latter, asserting, as no other had yet done, the absolute independence of the Church with regard to marriage, which Christ had withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the civil power. Already, “would not one be inclined to say that we have a nation within the nation? Yes; and it will continue to be so, until the whole nation itself have passed into the ranks of this new people.” (Gueranger: Paschal Time, Vol 2, Thursday of the Third Week after Easter)

Within the bosom of the Church, thou hadst other cares. Doctrinal contests were at their height and attacked the first of our mysteries: Sabellius condemned for his audacity in declaring that the real distinction of Persons in the most Holy Trinity is incompatible with the unity of God, left the field open to another sect, who so separated the Three Divine Persons as to make them three Gods. Again, there was Montanus, whose disciples, enemies of the Sebellian theories even before Sabellius appeared, courted the favor of the Holy See for their system of false mysticism and extravagant reformation. But as an experienced pilot avoids the rocks and shoals, so between the subtilities of dogmatizers, the pretensions of rigorists, the utopias of politicians, thou, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, didst with a sure hand steer the barque of Peter towards its glorious destination. The more Satan hates thee and pursues thee even to the present day, the more mayest thou be glorified forever. Give thy blessing to us, who are thy sons and thy disciples.

From Slave to Pope: The Inspiring Story of St Callistus | Mercy & Redemption

A sermon for today. Please remember to say 3 Hail Marys for the Priest.

St Donatian, Bishop of Rheims: Butler's Lives of the Saints

St Calixtus, Pope & Martyr: Butler's Lives of the Saints

St Donatian, Confessor, Bishop of Rheims, & Patron of Bruges

From Fr Alban Butler's Lives of the Saints:

HE was the seventh bishop of Rheims, and died about the year 389. Charles the Bald having bestowed the relics of this saint on Baldwin, whom he had created earl of Flanders, to hold of him that rich province as a fief, in 863 the earl deposited them in the church of Bruges, which, thereupon, took the title of St. Donatian’s, being before called our Lady’s. It was made a bishop’s cathedral in 1559. See Flodoard, in Hist. Rhem.; Marlot, Hist. de Rheims, c. 1; Ant. Sanders Hagiogr. Flandr. p. 133. Molan. et Miræus.