New Book by Dr Joseph Shaw: An Irrefutable Apologia for the Traditional Liturgy

The Hon. Joseph Shaw, DPhil (Oxon), FRSA, is Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and President of Fœderatio Internationalis Una Voce.

From Rorate Cæli

In a time like ours, when ignorance, half-truths, and outright lies seem to dominate the airwaves, classrooms, halls of power, and even church pulpits, Catholics need access to the unvarnished truth of the Faith as it powerfully confronts the errors and misdirections of the modern age. But where are we to find such help?

Dr. Joseph Shaw, president of the International Federation Una Voce and Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England & Wales, has distinguished himself as one of the finest writers today on a host of difficult and controversial questions. Os Justi Press is pleased to announce the release of Dr. Shaw's latest book: The Liturgy, the Family, and the Crisis of Modernity.

The book divides into three parts, as suggested by the title.

The first part examines the place of the ancient Catholic liturgy in modernity, defending it, against the misunderstandings of modernists, as something supremely suited to engage our deepest instincts towards the worship of God. Chapter 1 tells what Shaw discovered about the Church along the path of discovering the ancient Roman rite; chapter 2 looks at the purpose of liturgy; chapter 3 gives an account of the history of liturgy, explaining how it is conceptually and practically possible for a heritage to be both received as a "changeless given" and also enhanced and developed over time; chapter 4 develops the role of Latin in fostering participation (yes, you read that correctly!); and chapters 5 and 6 delve into the ways in which rituality, contrary to a standard narrative, is a cause of freedom rather than of confinement.

The second part turns to the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and addresses a series of lines of attack on those Catholics attached to the traditional Latin Mass—notably the attempt to link them to the crisis of clerical abuse. Here Dr. Shaw fearlessly probes what Vatican II actually accomplished "on the ground"; the intimate link between orthodoxy in doctrine and tradition in liturgy (and the contrary); true and false notions of diversity; the Freudian origins of the discourse about the "rigidity" of conservatives or backwardists; the need to assess rightly the meaning of "clericalism" and how it relates to abuse; and the damage done by means of so-called "sex education," which has been allowed to take over unresisted by the postconciliar hierarchy.

In the third part Dr. Shaw addresses one of the most contested issues of our times, sexuality and gender roles, and asks what, if anything, the Church can still say about them. Partly agreeing with and partly correcting the theory of Leon Podles, Shaw explains the sense in which there has been a "feminization" of Christianity -- yet one that was to a large extent resisted in the Catholic Church by a patriarchal theology, liturgy, and structures until after the Council. He offers what is certainly one of the best expositions of male headship, natural and supernatural, in any available literature, and offers a powerful critique of the sexual revolution as a betrayal of women. Lastly, he looks at the family as the locus of culture and transmission of the faith, especially in an era when the hierarchy have largely abandoned both.

Your gut feeling that something has gone badly wrong in the Catholic Church is, in fact, correct; your intuition that it has something to do with our divine worship is right on target; your instinct that the response must come from deep within the family and deep within our bimillenial tradition is entirely accurate. Dr. Shaw's book explains just how all this is true; how we ought to evaluate the secularizing path the Church has trodden in recent decades; and what we, who wish to live the Faith, can do, here and now, to restore a healthy and sacred culture.

The Liturgy, the Family, and the Crisis of Modernity is available either directly from Os Justi Press (shipping within the USA) or from any Amazon outlet around the world.

Here is a video about this book:

"Shaw doesn’t propose that we turn back the clock, but reveals a path ahead out of the current crisis through a mature dialectic with those modern ecclesiastical developments that allow for a recovery of the tradition that belongs to all Catholics by a claim of right."—Dr Sebastian Morello, European Conservative

"I commend it very enthusiastically."—Fr John Hunwicke, Mutual Enrichment Blog

"With this book, Joseph Shaw provides Traditionalist Catholics with an antidote to such madness when dealing with our own deepest concerns, showing how the problems of the liturgy, the family, and the crises brought about by Modernity's Original Sins must be tackled as a unit, and with respect for historical mistakes."—Dr John Rao, Roman Forum

"For after all these years, it is rare to find something as fresh, as thought-provoking, as original as the exploration of the crisis in these pages—one that marries acute, up-to-the-minute observation of unfolding secular trends with a striking inquest into the deep, underlying reasons for these trends (or rather tragedies)."—Roger Buck, author of The Gentle Traditionalist

"These essays are marked not only by clarity of style and breadth of knowledge, but also by something even more welcome: fresh thinking."—Fr Thomas Crean, author of The Mass and the Saints

* * *

N.B. For readers in the United Kingdom:

There will be an official book launch with a talk by the author, refreshments, and a chance to buy the book at a reduced price, on Thursday, March 9, at 6:30 pm, in St Wilfrid's Hall, London Oratory.

Ember Wednesday of Lent

Today's Holy Mass from Corpus Christi Church, Tynong, VIC, AU. You may follow the Mass @ Divinum Officium.

St David of Wales | Stories of Saints

I couldn't find a sermon, but here's a children's video on St David.

Collect of St David, Bishop & Confessor - Indulgenced Today (See Note)

According to the Apostolic Penitentiary, a partial indulgence is granted to those who on the feast of any Saint recite in his honour the oration of the Missal or any other approved by legitimate Authority.

V. O Lord, hear my prayer.

R. And let my cry come unto thee.
Let us pray.
Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God: that the venerable feast of Blessed David, Thy Confessor and Bishop, may increase our devotion and promote our salvation.

Through Jesus Christ, Thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.

R. Amen. 

I would assume that this indulgence also attaches to the recitation of the Troparion and Kontakion of the Saint of the day in the Eastern Calendar which are in my Eastern Rite post at 00.06.

Nota bene - St David, is not celebrated on the Universal Calendar, but according to the Roman Martyrology, today is his Feast Day. The Collect is taken from the Common of Confessor Bishops. 

Imagining a Heretical Cardinal

Bishop Paprocki calls out FrancisCardinal McElroy for heresy. I saw a tweet that called this a 'mediaeval-style smackdown'. Good on His Lordship!

From First Things

By Thomas J. Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield, Illinois 

Imagine if a cardinal of the Catholic Church were to publish an article in which he condemned “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist” and stated that “unworthiness cannot be the prism of accompaniment for disciples of the God of grace and mercy.” Or what if a cardinal of the Catholic Church were to state publicly that homosexual acts are not sinful and same-sex unions should be blessed by the Church? 

Until recently, it would be hard to imagine any successor of the apostles making such heterodox statements. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon today to hear Catholic leaders affirm unorthodox views that, not too long ago, would have been espoused only by heretics. “Heretic” and “heresy” are strong words, which contemporary ecclesiastical politeness has softened to gentler expressions such as “our separated brethren” or “the Christian faithful who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.” But the reality is that those who are “separated” and “not in full communion” are separated and not in full communion because they reject essential truths of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Thus, it is deeply troubling to consider the possibility that prelates holding the office of diocesan bishop in the Catholic Church may be separated or not in full communion because of heresy. 

Yet both the cases mentioned above would in fact involve heresy, since heresy is defined as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law). What, then, constitutes “some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith”? 

According to canon 750, 

A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

In 1998, Pope John Paul II added a second paragraph to canon 750, which states, 

Furthermore, each and every thing set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Holy Father also amended canon 1371 of the Code of Canon Law, adding an appropriate reference to canon 750, so that it now reads: “The following are to be punished with a just penalty: a person who . . . teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract.” 

Canon 752 says, 

Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

In his apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, Pope John Paul II explained his reason for making these changes to canon law: 

To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful . . . we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.  

Normally canonical sanctions require that either a judicial or administrative process be followed before a penalty can be imposed. However, it is important to note that canon 1364 says that “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” A latae sententiae excommunication is a sentence that is automatically incurred without any canonical process. While an automatic penalty without due process is unheard of in most judicial systems, canon law provides for such penalties, due to the distinctive character of spiritual offenses such as apostasy, heresy, and schism, since a person who espouses apostasy, heresy, or schism has de facto separated themselves ontologically—that is, in reality—from the communion of the Church. Thus heretics, apostates, and schismatics inflict the penalty of excommunication upon themselves. 

Returning to the earlier examples cited, it is contrary to a “truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” to reject or condemn “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist,” as if no such barriers existed. They do exist, and they are a matter of divine revelation. The truth about eucharistic coherence that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith was articulated by St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord . . . For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:27–29). This has been the constant teaching of the Church for the past two thousand years. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.” A mortal sin is one which “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God.” 

With regard to the sinfulness of homosexual acts, the truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is also stated clearly in the Catechism: 

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.  

Thus a cardinal of the Catholic Church, like any other Catholic who denies settled Catholic teaching, embraces heresy, the result of which is automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. 

In addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in canon 1336, such as prohibiting residence in a certain place or territory and removing “a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary.” Canon 1364 adds, “If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.” 

Canon 194 provides for removal from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself in the following cases:

1)    a person who has lost the clerical state;
2)    a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; and
3)    a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

However, canon 194 adds this restriction: “The removal . . . can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” Only the pope can remove a cardinal from office or dismiss him from the clerical state in the case of heresy or other grave crimes. If he does not do so, the unseemly prospect arises of a cardinal, excommunicated latae sententiae due to heresy, voting in a papal conclave. 

We must pray that the Holy Spirit will not let this happen, and will inspire  anyone who espouses heretical views to renounce them and seek reconciliation with our Lord and his Church.

Dewi Sant (Saint David), Patron of Wales

Dewi Sant (St David) is the Patron of the Principality of Wales. As in Ireland with the shamrock on St Patrick's Day, the Welsh wear leeks and daffodils in honour of their Patron.

According to tradition, St. David was the son of King Sant of South Wales and St. Non. He was ordained a priest and later studied under St. Paulinus. Later, he was involved in missionary work and founded a number of monasteries. The monastery he founded at Menevia in Southwestern Wales was noted for extreme asceticism. David and his monks drank neither wine nor beer - only water - while putting in a full day of heavy manual labour and intense study. Around the year 550, David attended a synod at Brevi in Cardiganshire. His contributions at the synod are said to have been the major cause for his election as primate of the Cambrian Church. He was reportedly consecrated archbishop by the patriarch of Jerusalem while on a visit to the Holy Land. He also is said to have invoked a council that ended the last vestiges of Pelagianism. David died at his monastery in Menevia around the year 589, and his cult was approved in 1120 by Pope Callistus II. He is revered as the patron of Wales. Undoubtedly, St. David was endowed with substantial qualities of spiritual leadership. What is more, many monasteries flourished as a result of his leadership and good example. His staunch adherence to monastic piety bespeaks a fine example for modern Christians seeking order and form in their prayer life. His feast day is March 1.

The legendary story of Dewi Sant from Storynory, a site with stories for children, including tales of the Saints.

David’s father was the King of Ceredigion, and some say that he was the nephew of the famous English King Arthur, whose knights sat around a round table. David’s mother was a poor but beautiful young woman, and the King did not look after her. When she was ready to give birth to David, she found that she was caught outside in a storm. The sky was filled with great flashes of lightning, and there were terrifying crashes of thunder. Hail and rain were coming down everywhere, except on the spot where she got herself ready to deliver the child. All around her was dry and lit by the sun.

David was baptised by a blind monk. Some of the water from the font splashed onto his eyes, and immediately he could see.

When David grew up he became a monk, and he travelled around Wales and England. He founded monasteries and churches including the famous Abbey at Glastonbury where it is said that King Arthur is buried. You can still see the beautiful ruins of the Abbey to this day.

David told his followers to be vegetarians and, of course, they ate a lot of leeks which grow very well in Wales. The monks who joined him had to give up much more. They didn’t use animals for farming – and they even pulled ploughs themselves instead of using oxen. They weren’t allowed to own any possessions, and if one of them said “My book” he had to do a penitence, which is a kind of punishment.

Despite his tough ways, St. David became very popular – perhaps because he had the gift of working miracles. For instance, when his neighbours' land was drying up, he stuck his staff into the earth and a spring sprung out of the ground. A local ruler became very jealous of his popularity, and his wife told him to send slaves with sticks to beat David and his monks – but as they came to attack the monks, their arms lost all their strength, and all they could do was to hurl filthy insults at them. When they returned home, they found that all their cattle had died. They returned to the monks and asked forgiveness. This time when they went back, all their cattle had come back to life.

Another time, some of St. David’s monks turned against him and decided to poison his food, but a friend of his in Ireland foresaw this in a dream and he sent St. Scuthyn to warn him. There were no ships ready, to carry Scuthyn across the Irish sea to Wales, but he waded into the water and a sea monster picked him up on his back and carried him across. When he arrived he warned St. David that his cook had put some deadly poison into his bread. At dinner time, St. David broke the bread into three pieces. He gave one piece to a dog, and another to a crow – both immediately died. Then he blessed the third piece, which he ate himself. Everyone watching thought that he would surely die too – but he was perfectly alright.

His most famous miracle happened at a great religious meeting. There was a vast crowd of people in the audience, and not one of the bishops who spoke could make themselves heard – except for David. The ground beneath him rose up into a hill so that he stood high up above the crowd, and a dove landed on his shoulder. His voice rang out as clear as a trumpet. St. David is often pictured speaking with a dove on his shoulder.

David became Bishop, not just of the Welsh, but of all the Britons. At that time, the Britons often had to fight off Saxon invaders from Europe. Before one great battle, St. David told the army of the Britons to wear leeks in their hats as a kind of uniform. They won the battle, and ever since leeks have been a welsh symbol. To remember the victory, Welsh soldiers eat raw leeks on the eve of St. David’s day.

St. David lived to be more than 100 years old, and as he was dying, the monastery in which he lay was filled with angels. His last words were “Gwnewch y pethau bychain mewn bywyd,” which means, “Do the little things in life,” and to this day, it’s a common saying in Wales.

The only picture I could find

with his name in Welsh!

Happy St David's Day!

EMBER DAYS ALERT!

 Today, Friday and Saturday are the Lenten Ember days. These days are traditionally observed with fast, partial abstinence (full on Friday, of course), and prayer.

Some information on the Ember Days-

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:
 
All things have their season,
and in their times all things pass under heaven.
A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.
A time to kill, and a time to heal.
A time to destroy, and a time to build.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh.
A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather.
A time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
A time to get, and a time to lose.
A time to keep, and a time to cast away.
A time to rend, and a time to sew.
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
A time of war, and a time of peace.

Four times a year, the Church sets aside three days to focus on God through His marvellous creation. These quarterly periods take place around the beginnings of the four natural seasons that "like some virgins dancing in a circle, succeed one another with the happiest harmony," as St. John Chrysostom wrote (see Readings below).

These four times are each kept on a successive Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday and are known as "Ember Days," or Quatuor Tempora, in Latin. The first of these four times comes in Winter, after the the Feast of St. Lucy; the second comes in Spring, the week after Ash Wednesday; the third comes in Summer, after Pentecost Sunday; and the last comes in Autumn, after Holy Cross Day Their dates can be remembered by this old mnemonic:

Sant Crux, Lucia, Cineres, Charismata Dia
Ut sit in angaria quarta sequens feria.

Which means:

Holy Cross, Lucy, Ash Wednesday, Pentecost,
are when the quarter holidays follow.

For non-Latinists, it might be easier to just remember "Lucy, Ashes, Dove, and Cross" -- or "Lenty, Penty, Crucy, Lucy."

These times are spent fasting and partially abstaining (voluntary since the new Code of Canon Law) in penance and with the intentions of thanking God for the gifts He gives us in nature and beseeching Him for the discipline to use them in moderation. The fasts, known as "Jejunia quatuor temporum," or "the fast of the four seasons," are rooted in Old Testament practices of fasting four times a year:

Zacharias 8:19:
Thus saith the Lord of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Juda, joy, and gladness, and great solemnities: only love ye truth and peace.

Our Israelite ancestors once fasted weekly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but Christians changed the fast days to Wednesdays (the day on which Christ was betrayed) and Fridays (the day on which He was crucified). The weekly two day fasts were later amended in the Roman Church to keeping only Fridays as penitential days, but during Embertides, the older, two-day fasts are restored. Saturdays (the day He was entombed) were added to these Ember times of fasting and are seen as a sort of culmination of the Ember Days: for example, on Ember Wednesdays, there is one lesson given during the Mass; on Fridays, there are none; and on Saturdays, there are four or five. Interestingly, the story of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago's escape from King Nabuchodonosor's fiery furnace with the help of an angel is commemorated on each Saturday of Embertides except that of Whit Embertide, and part of their beautiful hymn of praise follows (Daniel 3:52-56. See readings at the bottom of the page for this gorgeous hymn in its entirety).

In any case, the Dominican, Blessed Jacopo de Voragine (A.D. 1230-1298), Archbishop of Genoa, wrote a collection of the stories of the Saints known as "Legenda Aurea" (Golden Legend). This work gives eight quite interesting reasons to fast during Ember Days:

The fasting of the Quatretemps, called in English Ember days, the Pope Calixtus ordained them. And this fast is kept four times in the year, and for divers reasons.

For the first time, which is in March, is hot and moist. The second, in summer, is hot and dry. The third, in harvest, is cold and dry. The fourth in winter is cold and moist. Then let us fast in March which is printemps for to repress the heat of the flesh boiling, and to quench luxury or to temper it. In summer we ought to fast to the end that we chastise the burning and ardour of avarice. In harvest for to repress the drought of pride, and in winter for to chastise the coldness of untruth and of malice.

The second reason why we fast four times; for these fastings here begin in March in the first week of the Lent, to the end that vices wax dry in us, for they may not all be quenched; or because that we cast them away, and the boughs and herbs of virtues may grow in us. And in summer also, in the Whitsun week, for then cometh the Holy Ghost, and therefore we ought to be fervent and esprised in the love of the Holy Ghost. They be fasted also in September tofore Michaelmas, and these be the third fastings, because that in this time the fruits be gathered and we should render to God the fruits of good works. In December they be also, and they be the fourth fastings, and in this time the herbs die, and we ought to be mortified to the world.

The third reason is for to ensue the Jews. For the Jews fasted four times in the year, that is to wit, tofore Easter, tofore Whitsunside, tofore the setting of the tabernacle in the temple in September, and tofore the dedication of the temple in December.

The fourth reason is because the man is composed of four elements touching the body, and of three virtues or powers in his soul: that is to wit, the understanding, the will, and the mind. To this then that this fasting may attemper in us four times in the year, at each time we fast three days, to the end that the number of four may be reported to the body, and the number of three to the soul. These be the reasons of Master Beleth.

The fifth reason, as saith John Damascenus: in March and in printemps the blood groweth and augmenteth, and in summer coler, in September melancholy, and in winter phlegm. Then we fast in March for to attemper and depress the blood of concupiscence disordinate, for sanguine of his nature is full of fleshly concupiscence. In summer we fast because that coler should be lessened and refrained, of which cometh wrath. And then is he full naturally of ire. In harvest we fast for to refrain melancholy. The melancholious man naturally is cold, covetous and heavy. In winter we fast for to daunt and to make feeble the phlegm of lightness and forgetting, for such is he that is phlegmatic.

The sixth reason is for the printemps is likened to the air, the summer to fire, harvest to the earth, and the winter to water. Then we fast in March to the end that the air of pride be attempered to us. In summer the fire of concupiscence and of avarice. In September the earth of coldness and of the darkness of ignorance. In winter the water of lightness and inconstancy.

The seventh reason is because that March is reported to infancy, summer to youth, September to steadfast age and virtuous, and winter to ancienty or old age. We fast then in March that we may be in the infancy of innocency. In summer for to be young by virtue and constancy. In harvest that we may be ripe by attemperance. In winter that we may be ancient and old by prudence and honest life, or at least that we may be satisfied to God of that which in these four seasons we have offended him.

The eighth reason is of Master William of Auxerre. We fast, saith he, in these four times of the year to the end that we make amends for all that we have failed in all these four times, and they be done in three days each time, to the end that we satisfy in one day that which we have failed in a month; and that which is the fourth day, that is Wednesday, is the day in which our Lord was betrayed of Judas; and the Friday because our Lord was crucified; and the Saturday because he lay in the sepulchre, and the apostles were sore of heart and in great sorrow.

Now, in addition to the penitential fasting and alms-giving of this time, it is good to consider our stewardship of the earth, a responsibility God gave to us in the Garden of Eden, as recorded in Genesis 1:28-30:

God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon.

 The point is also beautifully made in the eighth Psalm:

O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in the whole earth! For thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens. Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise, because of thy enemies, that thou mayst destroy the enemy and the avenger. For I will behold thy heavens, the works of thy fingers: the moon and the stars which thou hast founded.

What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: And hast set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea. O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth!

Be mindful of your effects on our dear earth and don't allow people to "politicize" the issue of our stewardship of God's creation! But to be mindful of nature, it helps to actually see her first. Go outside and look! And praise God for all you see, hear, smell, feel, and taste as you allow His glorious works to touch your senses!

Action or Reaction? Michael Warren Davis’ “The Reactionary Mind”

I want this book! It came out in 2021, but I just discovered it whilst surfing the net a day or so ago. It sounds like Mr Davis is describing me.

From The Imaginative Conservative

By Fr Dwight Longenecker

In his new book, Michael Warren Davis rescues the reactionaries. With a jaunty air and the panache of all the ridiculous warriors from Cyrano de Bergerac to Don Quixote, he stands up for all that is alternative, counter-cultural, strange, spare, and delightfully luddite.

I thought I was a fogey, but Michael Warren Davis, in his new book The Reactionary Mind: Why “Conservative” Isn’t Enough informs me that I am, in fact, a reactionary. I didn’t take to the term too happily because we all know that a reactionary is another name for a grump, a curmudgeon, an out-of-date, dyed-in-the-wool fuddy-duddy.

If the mainstream media and elite educators are to be believed, I am all of that and more: I am also privileged, racist, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and just about everything-phobic. I’m also a snob, a religious hypocrite, a white supremacist, and a just plain nasty specimen of humanity.

But Mr. Davis rescues the reactionaries. With a jaunty air and the panache of all the ridiculous warriors from Cyrano de Bergerac to Don Quixote, he stands up for all that is alternative, counter-cultural, strange, spare, and delightfully luddite.

He pokes at progressives and punctures the pomposity of our contemporary assumptions and the pride of our techno-affluent power. He is for the virtues of an earlier time and the sanity of a simpler life. His book is a reminder that in a world of fugitives, the one who returns home will seem to be running away.

In his first ten chapters, he outlines the main traits of the reactionary: He is a man who marches to a different drum; he looks at facts, not propaganda, and assesses truth according to a higher standard than yesterday’s trends and tomorrow’s fashions. So the reactionary sympathizes with Savonarola, enthuses about the inquisition, doubts the assumptions of science, and questions the trickery of technology.

In other words, like Samson pulling down the pillars of the temple of Dagon, Michael Warren Davis pushes against the pillars of our modern, techno-political power structures. He resents our unthinking reliance on technology and refuses to “follow the science.” Instead, in the second part of his book he lays out an alternative path. He calls for a return to simplicity and prefaces his book with a winning quotation from Robert Frost, “Well, if I have to choose one or the other I choose to be a plain New Hampshire farmer.”

In Part Two, he sketches the outlines of a simpler life, beginning with ideas on a more humane economy that is centered on the home and family rather than the office and the marketplace. He endorses a retreat from the non-stop lies of the mass media and entertainment industries, encourages us to switch off the screens, step back from our love affair with technology, and pick up the “patient arts”: reading, writing poetry, learning an instrument, smoking a pipe, drinking tea, gardening. In “Musings of a Human Liberationist,” he takes healthy potshots at the idiocy of contemporary conservatism with its marriage to unrestrained consumerism and internationalism.

Finally, Mr. Davis makes an appeal for “The Strenuous Life.” “Men lost their health when they lost their meaningful work on the land, which also cost them their freedom and independence. Today they settle for little things like “fitness” and (God help us) “wellness.” Attacking the gym culture for producing fake masculinity—all muscles and fragile machismo—Mr. Davis calls for a return to the rugged individual like Teddy Roosevelt who loved the great outdoors and the fresh air that it offered. The reactionary should therefore combine the patient arts with boxing, hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping.

Mr. Davis’ book is s delightful rant against the idiotic modern world in which we find ourselves. It is observant, well-researched, suitably absurd, irreverent, and iconoclastically silly. Like that other great reactionary John Senior, Mr. Davis’ manifesto is in many ways unrealistic, romantic tosh. Not many of us can do a Thoreau and go live in the woods. We’re tied to our mortgages, our jobs, and yes, to our gym memberships, our Netflix, and our social media.

However, rants like Mr. Davis’ can inspire us to take small steps. All of us can read more and watch the screen less. All of us can get outside more, challenge the system, doubt the headlines, distrust the politicians, and try to accept that we will have enough just as soon as we realize that we have enough.

Furthermore, idealistic books like Mr. Davis’ often inspire movements that do change the world. John Senior, for example, wanted a boys boarding school where the lads would rise at five to milk the cows before going into chapel to sing lauds in Latin and then troop off to the dining hall for a hearty breakfast. He never founded such a school, but some of his students went to France and became Benedictine monks, then returned to Oklahoma years later and founded Clear Creek Monastery, which is now chock-full of young men who live pretty much the way John Senior dreamt. (The monastery is so successful that they’re planning to plant a priory in New Mexico.)

So who knows, Mr. Davis’ muscular conservatism may inspire an army of young men to get married, have lots of kids, go to church, choose country living, and raise hearty, red-cheeked children who know how not only to survive in the wasteland of modernity, but to thrive and build a better future.

Mad Analysis: What Does "Tolerance" Mean?

MM discusses tolerance in terms of the 'gay marriage'/Chick-fil-A controversy of 2012 before Obergefell v. Hodges 'legalised' it.

From The Mad Monarchist (5 August 2012)

It must be election time in the United States because moral values so many people couldn’t care less about one way or the other are again at center stage. The latest involves the owner of a restaurant chain who said he supports traditional marriage and opposes “gay marriage”. He was immediately branded an intolerant bigot and the mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco said his business will no longer be welcome in their cities because the owner does not share their “values”. So, the narrative today is very simple; if you oppose gay “marriage” you’re a bigoted homophobe, “intolerant” and that’s all there is to it. So, even if you do no harm to a person, even if you do not slander or threaten a person but if you simply disagree with a person that now makes you “intolerant”? Yes, and even worse today it seems. I really cannot understand it. When did “tolerance” come to mean never saying or doing anything that might cause offense or hurt feelings?

The whole nature of this argument frankly baffles me. By long established tradition “marriage” is defined as the permanent union of one man and one woman. Now, a vocal minority wants to change that definition and when anyone complains about that or voices opposition the retort is that you are being discriminatory by not treating them just like everyone else. What? I’m confused. Of course they are being treated different than everyone else because their behavior is different from that of everyone else. If they were behaving just like everyone else there would be no reason to change the definition in the first place. The vast majority of humanity is heterosexual, if it wasn’t we would have died out a long time ago. Homosexuals are something different and I fail to see how they can legitimately complain about not being treated like everyone else while at the same time demanding that rules, traditions and the meaning of words be changed in order to accommodate their differences. They say they want “tolerance” and that those who oppose them are being “intolerant” but I don’t think they understand the meaning of the word.

Does this name-calling annoy me? You bet it does but only because I would rather not even have to deal with this subject at all. This is why it infuriates me to be called a bigot and a hatemonger and a homophobe in these arguments -because I don’t want to know who is or is not a homosexual in the first place! It would be pretty hard for me to be prejudiced against a homosexual if I had no idea that person was a homosexual and frankly I would prefer it that way. It makes me feel a little persecuted myself that I am not allowed to remain blissfully ignorant about the sexual habits of others. I am a big believer in privacy. What people do in their own homes is their own business. I don’t want to control it, I don’t even want to know about it. I don’t care, don’t know and don’t want to know who is doing what with whom. I really don’t! Yet, I, and the rest of the public along with me, are being forced to address these issues -and I don’t like it. I don’t like having to deal with it and I certainly don’t like being portrayed as the “bad guy” by people to whom I have done absolutely no harm. That seems utterly idiotic to me.

I am not and I am not for forcing anyone to do anything in their private lives; in their home lives. I’m also not very impressed with any law that is practically impossible to enforce as any law regulating consensual sexual behavior would be. In my life I have known quite a few people who were unusual or outside the mainstream but I was always told, since I was very small, that what people do on their own place is their own business and no one else’s. As far as I’m concerned they can do what they want with who they want and call it what they want and it’s none of my business. How can I be the “intolerant” one when I have not harmed or restricted anyone in anyway and would prefer to know nothing about what other people do in the first place? Yet, I am and it all comes down to a single issue these days: gay “marriage” and that, at its core, boils down to one simple, pertinent point: approval. Ultimately, that is it and ultimately that is why I think it is absurd and ridiculous and grossly unjust for the advocates of this to portray me and people like me as “intolerant”. They’re not looking for tolerance, they’re looking for approval.

I don’t even understand how opposing gay “marriage” could really be homophobic. To me, that would only make sense if the law said that two homosexual men could not get married but two heterosexual men could, which it doesn’t because that would be silly. In any event, some want their relationships to have the same legal status as that of other legally married people. Why? You don’t need the government to make a commitment to someone and you don’t need the government to give you a license to behave as you please in your own home. The only reason I can see is that these people want government recognition, sanction and effectively the “blessing” of the government of this country which rules on behalf of “we the people”. And that is where I am forced to get involved -forced- in something I have no desire to. By my vote and by my words they want me, through my government and personally if they ever met me, to say what they’re doing is okay. That is what it comes down to. They don’t just want me to let them do it, they want me, through our representative government, to officially and publicly approve of them doing it. I cannot. I will not.

I do not think this is being “intolerant”. I do not think this is being bigoted or prejudiced. There is plenty in the world I tolerate but I do not and do not have to approve of any of it. What frustrates me is that I cannot for the life of me understand why so many seem to want or need my approval in the first place. The advocates of this change intrude on my blissful ignorance about the private lives of others, stick their actions and desires in my face and demand that I approve of it. When I disapprove, after being forced to make the decision, they call me a bigot! If you find it “offensive” that I disapprove of your behavior, don’t expect any sympathy from me since I never asked you to seek my approval in the first place. I am far from the best person to consult on any matter concerning marriage. I am a confirmed bachelor who wouldn’t get married if you paid me. If I ever get the urge I will simply stop a random stranger, ask them to kick me as hard as they can and then take all my money. It would still save me a lot of time and aggravation. Because of this, some probably think I am not even entitled to an opinion on this subject. Well, I think I do since, certainly with no prompting on my part, the advocates of this change asked me to approve of their actions! They not only “asked” me for my opinion, they demanded it!

Whenever I dwell on this subject I cannot help but think of a scene in “A Man for All Seasons” in which the soon-to-be-condemned Thomas More says that he does none harm, he speaks none harm and he thinks none harm and if this is not enough to keep him alive then he longs not to live. When it comes to the gay and pro-gay community, if the fact that I do not and have no desire to tell them how to live their lives, that I do not harm them and that I have neither the power nor the inclination to force them to stop doing anything they choose is not enough to keep me from being called a bigot and intolerant -I cannot regard such people as any sort of victims or any sort of oppressed class. If the only way these people will refrain from slandering me and my religion is for me to publicly approve of their actions and call what they do something I do not believe it is, sorry, there is intolerance on display -and it ain’t coming from me. Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance and calling people names when they will not conform to your way of thinking is the exact opposite of being “tolerant”. I'm sick of it and I'm not going to put up with it anymore. I hereby declare myself entitled to ignore anyone who uses such tactics.

Bishop Challoner's Meditations - March 1st

EMBER-WEDNESDAY, FIRST WEEK IN LENT

ON A FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE SOUL

Consider first, that we must also examine the state of our souls as to hidden sins, as to such sins as we may be guilty of in others; for in these kinds, many are guilty of great disorders, while they flatter themselves that all goes well with them. Few indeed are ignorant of their carnal sins; though even in these sometimes persons deceive themselves, but very many take little or no notice of their spiritual sins, which are more interior; and though less infamous in the eyes of men, are more heinous in the sight of God; see then thou examine thyself thoroughly upon these heads; for spiritual sins are commonly very subtle, and not easily discerned, without a diligent search. Nay sometimes such as are the most guilty, will not believe themselves guilty of them. These spiritual sins are of one of these five kinds, viz,, pride, covetousness, envy, secret malice, and spiritual sloth. Look into them one by one, and if thy self love will suffer thee to be impartial in thy search, in all probability thou wilt find thyself more guilty than thou art aware of.

Consider 2ndly, in particular, how full thou art of thyself; how fond of every thing that flatters thee; how presumptuous of thy own sufficiency; how apt to compare thyself with others in thy thoughts, and to give thyself the preference; how apt to despise others; how unwilling to suffer any reproof or contradiction; how ready to swell with indignation upon every trifling opposition or contempt; how apt to break out into a storm upon every supposed affront; how much concerned at what the world will think or say of thy performances; how much more solicitous for thy worldly honour than for the glory of God. And what is all this but an unhappy pride, which is laying waste thy soul, and corrupting its very vitals, whilst thou art not sensible of it. See also, as to covetousness, whether the love of the mammon of the world does not reign in thy heart. Alas! the greatest miser does nor think himself covetous; but the tree is to be known by its fruit - such as an anxious care and a perpetual solicitude about the things of the world; and upon this account neglecting prayer and other spiritual duties, or being continually distracted in them; thinking more of thy money than of thy God; locking up thy heart in thy chest; losing thy peace upon every loss or disappointment; and a strange unwillingness to part with thy money, even when the honour of God, or thy neighbour's necessities call for it. See if nothing of this be thy case. See if thou art not more afraid of losing thy worldly substance than thy God. If so, thou art not in the way to heaven.

Consider 3rdly, as to the other spiritual sins, whether there be no person for whom thou hast a secret envy? No one whose praises, whose endowments, corporal or spiritual, whose virtues or performances, make thee uneasy, and gnaw thy soul, as if their advantages were a lessening to the honour, praise, and esteem which thou affectest. O how common is this mortal crime, and how many detractions and other evils does it produce! and yet how many take very little notice of it! Is it not thy case? Then as to secret malice, rancour, and hatred how dost thou stand affected? Look well into thyself; for here again we are too apt to deceive ourselves; but we must judge of the tree by its fruits, that is, by our way of thinking, speaking, and acting with relation to our supposed enemies. Now, there is so very wide a difference between the fruits of charity and those of malice, between love and hatred, that if we are sincere in our examination we cannot well be deceived therein. And as to spiritual sloth, which is a clog upon the soul, infinitely opposite to the love of God, to the spirit of prayer, to a due care in frequenting the sacraments and other duties; is not this also a most common evil, which frequently amounts to a mortal sin and yet how seldom do lukewarm souls take notice of it.

Conclude upon declaring an eternal war against all these vices, and particularly against that which thou hast reason to apprehend is thy predominant passion, that is to say, the chiefest and most dangerous of all thy enemies.

1 March, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

Catholic Action

1. Catholic action is the participation of the laity, or more correctly their co-operation, in the hierarchical apostolate of the Church. It is not really an innovation. It is as old as the Church herself, although it is only on account of the peculiar circumstances of our times that it has come to be organised in a special manner. From the beginning of Christianity, the laity of both sexes worked energetically alongside the Apostles for the expansion of the Kingdom of God. When St. Paul was writing to the Philippians he urged them to assist those Christian women who had done so much to spread the Gospel, as well as Clement and his other fellow-workers. "Help them, for they have toiled with me in the Gospel, as have Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers whose names are in the book of life." It is evident that even at that time there were laymen and women working in co-operation with the apostolic hierarchy. Every Christian, moreover, should feel the need to do this. Anyone who has the true faith and is on fire with the love of God and of his neighbour cannot but exert himself so that all men may reach the truth and live in accordance with it, that is, in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel. Anyone who is not motivated by this desire cannot claim to be a genuine and enthusiastic Christian.

2. The need for a lay apostolate has grown tremendously in our day. The scarcity of priests is not the only reason for this. It is true that their numbers are entirely inadequate in many places to meet the spiritual needs of the people. But there is the additional factor that certain spheres cannot easily be penetrated by the clergy. There are many people who never even enter a church. They never have any contact with the priest, who finds it difficult to approach them. He needs a "long arm" which will bear the light where he cannot carry it himself. The lay apostolate can be this "long arm." Catholic workmen can do an amount of good among their fellow workers by word and by example. So can teachers, clerks, doctors, journalists, and the rest. This kind of environmental apostolate is very valuable today. It must be built up into a system of blood-vessels which will carry the stream of Christian life from its heart, which is the priesthood, to the farthest extremities of society. Let Christian laymen recognise that this is an honourable vocation which they have received, for it is a participation in the priestly office. Everyone should feel summoned to do everything possible in his own environment to lead souls to Christ.

3. Spiritual formation is necessary for this task. The layman must be a sincere and earnest Christian. Otherwise, he will not be able to transmit to others what he has not got himself. He must live the life of the Church and help it to fulfil its saving mission. To say that he must co-operate with the priest is the same as saying that he must co-operate with Christ, for the priest must be another Christ. So it is a high honour which the layman assumes when he dedicates himself to the apostolate and he will enjoy many consolations.

If anyone deliberately refuses to undertake this apostolate, his faith is neither alive nor active. If our faith is to be sincere and effective, we must first of all undergo a strenuous spiritual training, nourished by prayer and by divine grace. As a consequence, we shall work generously to bring about the triumph of the life of Christ in other souls also.

Eastern Rite - Feasts of 1 March AM 7531

Today is the Feast of the Holy Venerable-Martyr Eudokia.

✠✠✠✠✠

Holy Monastic Martyr Eudokia was a Samaritan, a native of the city of Heliopolis in Phoenicia (modern Baalbek), who lived during the reign of Trajan (98-117). Her pagan impiety took her off the good path, and for a long time, she led a sinful life. Her soul was deadened and her heart hardened.

Eudokia awoke one night at midnight and heard singing from the house of a Christian woman next to hers. A monk was reading from a book that described the Last Judgment, the punishment of sinners, and the reward of the righteous. The grace of God touched Eudokia’s heart, and she grieved because of her great wealth and for her sinful life.

In the morning Eudokia hastened to call on the man whose rule of prayer she heard the previous night. This was a monk named Germanus, returning from pilgrimage to the holy places to his own monastery. Eudokia listened for a long time to the guidance of the Elder, and her soul was filled with joy and love for Christ. She asked Germanus to stay in her home for a week, during which she secluded herself in her room, and spent her time in fasting and prayer.

The Elder Germanus told her to give away her wealth and to forget her previous life. Eudokia received holy Baptism from Bishop Theodotus of Heliopolis. She entered a monastery and took upon herself very strict acts of penitence. The Lord granted forgiveness to the penitent sinner and endowed her with spiritual gifts.

After she had become the head of the monastery, the young pagan Philostrates (one of her former lovers) heard of her conversion to Christ and longed to see her again. Aflame with impious passion, he came into the monastery in the guise of a monk and began to urge Eudokia to return to Heliopolis, and resume her former life. “May God rebuke you and not allow you to leave these premises,” Eudokia cried. Then the impostor fell down dead. Fearing that she had served as an accomplice to murder, the sisters intensified their prayer and besought the Lord to reveal to them His will.

The Lord appeared to Saint Eudokia in a vision and said: “Arise, Eudokia, and pray for the resurrection of the dead man.” Through Eudokia’s prayers, Philostrates revived. Having been restored to life, the pagan begged the nun to forgive him. After he was baptized, he went back to Heliopolis. From that time he never forgot the mercy of God shown him, and he started onto the way of repentance.

Some time passed, and another situation occurred. Inhabitants of Heliopolis reported to the governor Aurelian, that Eudokia had taken gold and silver out of the city and concealed it at the monastery. Aurelian sent a detachment of soldiers to confiscate these supposed treasures. For three days the soldiers tried in vain to approach the walls of the monastery, but an invisible power of God guarded it.

Aurelian again sent soldiers to the monastery, this time under the command of his own son. But on the very first day of the journey Aurelian’s son injured his leg and soon died. Then Philostrates counselled Aurelian to write to Mother Eudokia, imploring her to revive the youth. And the Lord, in His infinite mercy, and through the prayers of Saint Eudokia, restored the youth to life. Having witnessed this great miracle, Aurelian and his close associates believed in Christ and were baptized.

When persecutions against Christians intensified, they arrested Eudokia and brought her to the governor Diogenes to be tortured. While torturing the saint, the military commander Diodorus received news of the sudden death of his wife Firmina. In despair, he rushed to Saint Eudokia with a plea to pray for his departed wife. The monastic martyr, filled with great faith, turned to God with prayer and besought Him to return Firmina to life. As eyewitnesses of the power and grace of the Lord, Diodorus and Diogenes believed in Christ and were baptized together with their families. Saint Eudokia lived for a while at the house of Diodorus and enlightened the newly-illumined Christians.

Once, the only son of a certain widow, who was working in the garden, was bitten by a snake and died. The mother wept bitterly for her dead son and asked Diodorus to resurrect him. Learning of her grief, Saint Eudokia said to Diodorus, “The time is at hand for you to show faith in the Almighty God, Who hears the prayers of penitent sinners and in His mercy grants them forgiveness.”

Diodorus was distressed, not considering himself worthy of such boldness before the Lord, but he obeyed Saint Eudokia. He prayed and in the name of Christ he commanded the dead one to rise, and before the eyes of everyone present, the youth revived.

Saint Eudokia returned to her monastery, where she lived in asceticism for fifty-six years.

After Diogenes died the new governor was Vicentius, a fierce persecutor of Christians. Having learned of the accomplishments of the saint, he gave orders to execute her. The holy martyr was beheaded on March 1, 107.

Troparion — Tone 8

With an upright mind, you bound your soul to the love of Christ. / As a disciple of the Word you turned from corruption and all that passes away, / for you were not moved by earthly beauty. / First you mortified the passions through fasting, then you put the enemy to shame by your suffering. / Therefore, Christ has granted you a two-fold crown. / Glorious Eudokia, venerable passion-bearer, entreat Christ God that our souls may be saved!

Kontakion — Tone 4

You contended well in your suffering, all-praised one; / even after your death you bless us, pouring out wonders on us. / In faith we run to your divine temple, / and as we celebrate your feast, we entreat you, venerable martyr Eudokia, / that we be delivered from spiritual afflictions and may receive the grace of miracles.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 MARCH – ST. DAVID OF WALES (Bishop)

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 MARCH – ST. DAVID OF WALES (Bishop): Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould: St. David, or Dewi, as the Welsh call him, was born about 446, at Mynyw, which was named St David’s after...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 MARCH – EMBER WEDNESDAY IN THE FIRST WEEK OF LENT

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 MARCH – EMBER WEDNESDAY IN THE FIRST WEEK OF LENT: Dom Prosper Guéranger: The Fast of today is prescribed by a double law: it is Lent, and it is Ember Wednesday. It is the same with the ...

1 March, The Chesterton Calendar

March 1st
ST. DAVID'S DAY

My eyes are void with vision; I sing but I cannot speak;I hide in the vaporous caverns like a creature wild and weak;But for ever my harps are tuned and for ever my songs are sung,And I answer my tyrants ever in an unknown tongue.

When the blue men broke in the battle with the Roman or the Dane,In the cracks of my ghastly uplands they gathered like ghosts again.Some say I am still a Druid, some say my spirit showsCatholic, Puritan, Pagan; but no man knows.

Mother of God's good witches, of all white mystery,Whatever else I am seeking, I seek for thee.For the old harp better fitted and swung on a stronger thong,We, that shall sing for ever; O hear our song!
'The Seven Swords.'

1 March, The Holy Rule of St Benedict, Patriarch of Western Monasticism

CHAPTER XXIV. What the measure of excommunication should be

1 Mar. 1 July. 31 Oct.

The measure of excommunication or chastisement should be meted out according to the gravity of the offence, the estimation of which shall be left to the judgment of the Abbot. If any brother be found guilty of lighter faults, let him be excluded from the common table. And this shall be the rule for one so deprived: he shall intone neither Psalm nor antiphon in the Oratory, nor shall he read a lesson, until he have made satisfaction. Let him take his meals alone, after those of the brethren so that if, for example, the brethren eat at the sixth hour, let him eat at the ninth: if they eat at the ninth, let him eat in the evening, until by proper satisfaction he obtain pardon.

2 March, The Roman Martyrology

Sexto Nonas Mártii Luna décima Anno Dómini 2023

March 2nd 2023, the 10th day of the Moon, were born into the better life:

In England, [about the year 672,] holy Chad, Bishop of the Mercians and of Lindisfarne, whose eminent graces are recorded by Bede. [His body was buried at Lichfield, first in the Church of Our Lady, second in the Church of St. Peter, and thirdly in the Cathedral dedicated to Our Lady and St. Chad. The town was named Lichfield on account of the number martyred and buried there under Maximian Hercules.]
At Rome, upon the Latin Way, [about the year 258,] under the Emperors Valerian and Gallienus, the holy martyrs Jovinus and Basileus.
Likewise at Rome, under the Emperor Alexander and the Prefect Ulpian, many holy martyrs, who were long tortured, and at length put to death.
At Porto, the holy martyrs Paul, Heraclius, Secundilla, and Januaria.
At Caesarea, in Cappadocia, the holy martyrs Lucius the Bishop, Absolom, Lorgius.
In Campania are commemorated eighty holy martyrs, who would not eat meat sacrificed unto idols, nor adore a she-goat's head, and therefore, [about the year 629,] were cruelly slain by the Lombards.
At Rome, [about the year 483,] the holy Confessor Pope Simplicius.
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.