"I myself saw her incorrupt" ~ November 22, feast of St. Cecilia

Detail of Stefano Maderno's Saint Cecilia from AD 1600 —
a year after the sculptor had seen the saint's incorrupt remains.

November 22 is the feast day of one of the most ancient female martyrs of the Church – Saint Cecilia of Rome. Unlike many of the other early martyrs I have mentioned in this blog (eg. here, here, here, and here), Saint Cecilia’s Acts are considered by ecclesiastical scholars to be unreliable, having been composed two to three hundred years after her death. That said, there does seem to be broad agreement on some of the basic facts:

1. There was a Christian martyr named Cecilia. 
2. She was martyred in Rome. 
3. She was buried in the catacombs of St. Callixtus in Rome. 
4. She had a following in Rome that memorialized her from very early times. 
5. A basilica was built on the site of her house by Pope Urban in the 3rd century AD. 

As mentioned in previous posts on the destruction of Christian books under Diocletian (The Scriptures Destroyed by Fire) and the poetical remark of Prudentius on the same theme (The Oblivion of a Silent Age), the situation of Cecilia as an authentic Christian martyr with a legendary biography composed much later is far from unique. It seems clear that the Christians of the 6th century possessed only fragmentary details of the lives of many of the early martyrs, to which they added considerable pious embellishment.

St. Cecilia from the
6th century mosaics in
St. Apollinare Nuovo
in Ravenna.

The best and most comprehensive Life of Saint Cecilia (note, this link will open a PDF) was written by Abbé Prosper Guéranger and published in English in 1866. It contains her Acts set into a very broad context of the historical milieu in which Cecilia lived—presumably the 220s AD—and going in places very far afield from the main focus of the work. Abbé Guéranger seems to accept many of the romanticized aspects of the Vita, but includes numerous valuable references to Saint Cecilia from ancient ecclesiastical sources.

First among these is the Leonian Sacramentary which Abbé Guéranger calls the most ancient of the Church, the greater part of which was composed by Pope Saint Leo the Great (reigned, AD 440-461). This sacramentary contains a preface dedicated to Saint Cecilia which reads as follows:

“Cecilia, destined by the will of her parents to become the spouse of a mortal, scorned a union which was to last but a short time, and jealous of the crown of chastity, sought an immortal spouse, preferring the honors of everlasting life to the joys of maternity. Her glory is enhanced by her having prevailed upon Valerian to whom she was united in marriage, to join her in the practice of perpetual chastity, and to share with her the crown of martyrdom.” [Taken from Guéranger, Life of Saint Cecilia, page 159]

Cecilia is mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis, probably written sometime in the early 6th century but based on earlier sources, under the entry for Pope Urban I. This contains the following notice:

“[Urban] by his teaching turned many to baptism and faith, and among them Valerianus, a man of high nobility, husband of holy Cecilia.” [Taken from Loomis: Liber Pontificalis, page 21]

In the 1916 edition of the Liber, the editor, Louise Ropes Loomis, includes a helpful notice which indicates that the author of the Liber was probably familiar with the legendary Passion of St. Cecilia. In the same note, she also includes a translation of the earliest version of the Passion as provided in the Acta Sanctorum – the gigantic encyclopedic work begun by the Bollandists of the 17th century which compiles authentic acts of the saints:

Click for more info.

Cecilia, a virgin of lofty rank, carried always the Gospel of Christ hidden in her bosom….She was espoused to a young man, Valerianus….Valerianus found holy Urbanus, the bishop, who had already been twice a confessor and was in hiding among the tombs of the martyrs….

“Dost thouh call thyself that Urbanus whom the Christians entitle their pope? I hear that he is now condemned a second time and again he has betaken himself into hiding for the same cause.”

(Valerianus and Tiburtius, his brother,) were executed with the sword…. The holy Urbanus baptized in her (Cecilia’s) house more than four hundred of both sexes….

Almachius commanded that Cecilia should be brought before him and he asked her, saying…. “Of what state art thou?”

Cecilia said, “A free woman and a noble of high rank.” … The examiner beheaded (Cecilia). [Taken from Loomis: Liber Pontificalis, page 22, Footnote 1]

The above is probably all we can reliably know about the life and death of Saint Cecilia. However, events which transpired after her death related to her cult as a saint and martyr are manifold and more reliable. One such event, which confirms her veneration in Rome of the AD 540s, shows Pope Vigilius confronting the officers of the Empress Theodora in the basilica of St. Cecilia on her feast day:

When Augusta [Theodora] heard this, she sent Anthemius the scribe, with orders and great authority to Rome, saying: “If you find him in the basilica of Saint Peter, let him go. But if you find Vigilius in the Lateran or in the palace or any other church, set him immediately upon a ship and bring him to us. Else, by Him who liveth forever, I will have you flayed.”

And Anthemius the scribe came to Rome and found Vigilius in the Church of Saint Cecilia, November 22, for it was her birthday. And Anthemius took him while he was distributing gifts to the people [scholars interpret this to mean Holy Communion], and brought him down to the Tiber and set him on a ship. The people and the multitude followed him calling out that they would have a prayer from him. And when he had spoken a prayer, all of the people said: “Amen,” and the ship began to move.

The Romans saw that the ship in which Vigilius was seated had begun to move and then commenced to throw stones after him and sticks and dirty vessels and to cry out, “Your hunger go with you! Your pestilence go with you! You have done evil to the Romans; may you find evil where you go!” [Taken from Loomis: Liber Pontificalis, page 156]

More background on this fascinating episode may be found in a previous post: "I am receiving the reward for my deeds" ~ The Miserable Reign of Pope Vigilius, AD 537-555

Fresco of St. Cecilia in the
Catacombs of St. Callixtus.
Click image to enlarge.

The discovery and translation of Cecilia’s relics is a story unto itself. She was apparently buried first in the ancient catacomb of Callistus nearby the tombs of Pope Urban I, Saint Sebastian, St. Quirinus. This portion of the catacomb contains numerous frescos painted between the 5th and 13th centuries, including the one of Cecilia at right. Her relics were lost after the Lombard invasions of the 6th through 8th centuries, and rediscovered by Pope Pascal I in the 9th century, whence they were translated to the Basilica of Saint Cecilia in Trastevere which is traditionally believed to have been built over Cecilia’s house. It was said at the time when Pascal discovered Cecilia’s remains that they were in a state of perfect preservation. About 800 years later, in AD 1599, the sarcophagus was opened again by Cardinal Sfrondrati in the presence of witnesses. Sabine Baring-Gould tells the rest of the story:

It contained a coffin or chest of cypress wood. The Cardinal himself removed the cover. First was seen the costly lining and the silken veil, with which nearly eight centuries before Paschal had covered the body. It was faded, but not decayed, and through the almost transparent texture could be seen the glimmer of the gold of the garments in which the martyr was clad. After a pause of a few minutes, the Cardinal lifted the veil, and revealed the form of the maiden martyr lying in the same position in which she had died on the floor of her father’s hall. Neither Urban nor Paschal had ventured to alter that. She lay there, clothed in a garment woven with gold thread, on which were the stains of blood; and at her feet were the rolls of linen mentioned by Paschal, as found with the body. She was lying on her right side, the arms sunk from the body, her face turned to the ground; the knees slightly bent and drawn together. The attitude was that of one in a deep sleep. On the throat were the marks of the wounds dealt by the clumsy executioner. 

Thus she had lain, preserved from decay through thirteen centuries. When this discovery was made, Pope Clement VIII was lying ill at Frascati, but he empowered Cardinal Baronius and Bosio, the explorer of the Catacombs, to examine into the matter, and both of these have left an account of the condition in which the body was found. 

For five weeks all Rome streamed to the church to see the body; and it was not until Saint Caecilia’s Day that it was again sealed up in its coffin and marble sarcophagus. [Baring-Gould: Virgin Saints and Martyrs, [1901] p. 35]

Cardinal Sfrondrati summoned a young sculptor named Stefano Maderno to immortalize the incorrupt form of St. Cecilia in marble. That sculpture may be seen to this day at the Basilica of St. Cecila. Beneath the statue are words of the artist himself: “So I show to you in marble the representation of the most holy virgin Caecilia, in the same position which I myself saw her incorrupt lying in her sepulchre.”

The Nine Greatest Rulers of the Christian Roman Empire

Click here to share on Facebook.

The 4th through 7th centuries are often considered periods of decay and decline for the Roman Empire. I view them, however, as times of crisis and regeneration, as the previously pagan Empire was transformed into an amazingly resilient Christian Empire which persisted for another millennium despite attacks on all sides and myriad convulsions from within.

Who were the most effective rulers during this period? Opinions vary, but here are my choices. Portraits of all, taken from antiquity, may be found in the above image:

Constantine the Great (AD 306-337). Constantine may be considered the founder of the Christian Roman Empire. The story of his life is one of the great tales of triumph (at Rome and at Chyrsopolis) and tragedy, hinging on an episode of divine intervention which literally changed the course of human history—his vision of a Cross in the sky. By embracing Christianity and moving the imperial capital to Byzantium, Constantine created a solid foundation for a renewed Roman Empire which would endure for centuries to come. On his deathbed, he became the first Roman emperor to be baptized a Christian.

Constantius II (AD 337-361). Of the sons of Constantine the Great, Constantius proved to be the most effective. Though his methods left much to be desired, Constantius managed to protect and defend the empire from Persian aggression in the east, and from barbarian invasions in the west. He also crushed a major rebellion in the west under the usurper Magnus Magnentius who had previously slain his brother, Constans. A complicated man with a tendency toward brutality, Constantius swayed toward Arianism and caused the Church a great deal of theological and political upset.

Valentinian I (AD 364-375). Called “a good man and capable of holding the reins of the empire” by Hermias Sozomen, Valentinian rose through the ranks of the Roman military to become the leader of the elite Jovian and Herculean divisions. A steadfast Christian, he endured the hostility of the emperor Julian the Apostate and was elected emperor by the soldiers upon the death of Jovian in AD 364. He spent most of his reign effectively defending the imperial frontiers in the west and perished from a stroke after an angry confrontation with some barbarian ambassadors.

Theodosius I (AD 379-395). A Spaniard by birth, Theodosius was elevated to the imperial throne in the aftermath of the catastrophic Battle of Adrianople where the Roman field army was annihilated and the emperor Valens was killed. He faced the task of rebuilding the army and dealt admirably with the Gothic menace, putting the empire back on a sound footing. He also beat back a dangerous rebellion under Eugenius and Arbogast, and was the last man to rule a unified Eastern and Western Roman Empire. A devout Christian, Theodosius obeyed the command of Saint Ambrose of Milan to offer public repentance for his slaughter of innocent citizens in Thessalonika.

Pulcheria (AD 414-453). The daughter of the Eastern Emperor Arcadius, Pulcheria ruled as regent for her brother, the child-emperor Theodosius II, for many years. Having taken a vow of virginity, “she governed the Roman empire excellently and with great orderliness,” according to her contemporary, Hermias Sozomen. Her reign straddled the disastrous years of the barbarian invasions in both West and East, and under her guidance, the East was able to weather this storm successfully. She was also a driving force behind the Council of Chalcedon which helped unify the Christian Church which was rent with theological disputes.

Majorian (AD 457-461). Considered the last effective Western Roman Emperor, Majorian rose to power along with the barbarian Ricimer. Both men served under the powerful general Aetius, and together they navigated the chaotic political and military situation of mid-5th century Gaul. The two were strong enough to gain the imperial throne for Majorian in AD 457. Using a mixture of armed force and diplomacy, Majorian was able to reconstitute imperial authority in much of Gaul and Spain, and planned to re-conquer Vandal Africa. Ultimately, he was thwarted when his fleet was captured by the Vandals. Following this defeat, his one-time ally Ricimer had Majorian assassinated.

Justinian I (AD 527-565). After Constantine, Justinian is probably the best known of the Christian Roman Emperors. Having inherited the eastern Empire from his uncle, Justin I, Justinian conceived a grand plan for revitalizing the Roman Empire. Starting with the law, he successfully reformed and made clear over 1,000 years of Roman legal code. Though nearly toppled in a fiery rebellion early in his reign, Justinian used the opportunity to rebuild Constantinople and crown her with his great church, Hagia Sophia. Via his brilliant general, Belisarius, he re-conquered vast regions of the west that had been lost during the previous century. His efforts to bring harmony to the Church were less successful, however, and ultimately his efforts over-extended the resources of the empire, leaving it weaker though considerably larger upon his death.

Maurice (AD 582-602). Maurice was described by his contemporary Evagrius Scholasticus as “a prudent and shrewd man, very precise in all matters and unperturbed.” He rose through the court in Constantinople and won fame as Magister Militum of the East. He would later write a military manual which would come down to us as the Strategikon of Maurice. Upon acceding to the throne, Maurice inherited an empty treasury and aggressive enemies on all sides. He nonetheless managed to secure the frontiers, even pushing the Avars out of the Balkan provinces and campaigning on the far side of the Danube. His caution with the imperial finances, however, was scorned by the soldiers, who eventually rose up, deposed and killed Maurice and his family, initiating the disastrous reign of the tyrant, Phocas.

Heraclius (AD 610-641). Heraclius rose to power as the son of the exarch of Carthage during the calamitous reign of Phocas. Along with his father, Heraclius rose in rebellion in AD 608 and captured Constantinople two years later, deposing and beheading Phocas. By that time, however, much of the empire had been overrun by the Persians in the east, and the Avars in the north. Heraclius spent practically all of his reign painstakingly reconquering the lost regions, achieving a final decisive victory over the Persians in AD 630. Sadly, his herculean efforts had utterly exhausted the Roman Empire. At the Battle of Yarmuk in AD 636, Heraclius’s army was crushed by the invading Arabs, leading to the conquest of Roman Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Mesopotamia by the forces of Islam.

After the death of Heraclius in AD 641, the Empire carried on, but it would never again regain the size, power or hegemony that it had originally possessed. It would, however, continue to transmit its wealth of culture, learning, religious heritage and history far into the future.

"Dread Gehenna, and hold fast to Christ" ~ November 13, feast of Sts. Arcadius, Paschasius, Probus and Eutychianus

Funerary mosaic of Natalica, a Christian girl of 10, from 5th century
Roman or Vandal north Africa.

November 13 is the feast day of Saints Arcadius, Paschasius, Probus and Eutychianus. These four Spanish Roman martyrs were put to death by the cruel Vandal king, Geiseric, after he had completed his conquest of Roman Africa. Their martyrdom took place about AD 437 and their crime was refusing to accept the Arian heresy which was favored by the Vandals.

Writing in the mid-5th century, not many years after the events described, the chronicler Prosper of Aquitaine recorded the following about these martyrs:

In Africa, Geiseric, King of the Vandals, wanted to use the Arian impiety to undo the Catholic faith within the regions where he resided. He persecuted some of our bishops….In the same period, four Spaniards, Arcadius, Paschasius, Probus and Eutychianus were formerly considered by Geiseric to be valued and distinguished by virtue of their wisdom and faithful service. To make them even more esteemed, he commanded them to convert to the Arian heresy. But as they most steadfastly rejected this wickedness, the barbarian was roused to a most furious anger. First, their property was confiscated. Next, they were driven into exile, then tortured severely, and finally, suffering death in various ways, they succumbed wonderfully to a most glorious martyrdom.” [Taken from Eric Fournier: "The Vandal Conquest of North Africa: The Origins of a Historiographical Persona" in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History]. 

To one of these martyrs, Saint Arcadius, a remarkable letter was sent by Honoratus Antoninus, Bishop of Constantina in Africa. This letter urged the tortured man to constancy and pleaded with him to set aside the allurements of the world in favor of the Heavenly Kingdom. It reads, in part, as follows:

"The company of martyrs, thy predecessors, are waiting for thee. They guard thee, they hold out to thee the crown. I beseech thee, hold fast to what thou hast and let no other take away thy crown….Fear, then, the eternal punishments, where the fire always burns, where both body and soul are tortured in the darkness, where, with the devil, soul and body are consumed eternally. Dread Gehenna, and hold fast to Christ."

The persecution of Catholics by the Vandals in their newly won north African kingdom was brutal and thorough-going, though little remembered in our own time. I hope to write more about it in forthcoming posts. In the mean time, here is a previous post on the Vandalic conquest of Rome's north African provinces, as recorded by an eye-witness:

• 5th century bishop, Possidius of Calama, describes the last days of St. Augustine and the Vandal Conquest of Roman Africa

"To banish war, he must a warrior be" ~ Remembering Sgt. Joyce Kilmer on Veteran's Day

Click here to share on Facebook.

In honor of Veteran's Day, let us remember a soul so brave and so brilliant whose brief life-course flared too briefly across the early 20th century firmament before he met his merciful Maker. To this day, he is best known for his familiar poem entitled Trees which begins: “I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree…”

Joyce Kilmer was of a breed of men that seems practically extinct today. He was a New Jersey Catholic husband and father of an artistic and literary bent who, nonetheless, was able to summon courage and charity in the superlative as enunciated by Our Lord in John 15:13.

Though married with four children and widely regarded as one of the outstanding poets of his generation, Kilmer enlisted in the U.S. Army when war was declared between the United States and the Central Powers in 1917. He requested to be assigned to the infantry and though he was recommended for promotion to officer status, he refused and was deployed at the front in France as a sergeant. He was given dangerous duty, often acting as a scout operating in no-man’s land.

His division, the Fighting 69th, was immortalized after the war in a film of the same name starring James Cagney. Kilmer was portrayed in the movie by Jeffrey Lynn, and his poem, The Rouge Bouquet, is featured in this poignant scene, based on an actual event:


Kilmer wrote numerous charming letters from the front to his wife, Aline, which may be found collected here. Writing in one such letter on May 18, 1918, Kilmer draws a distinction between pacifism and peacemaking as follows:

P. C. ought to know the distinction between peacemakers and pacifists. I wonder he didn’t include St. Michael in his catalogue of pacifists. We are peace-makers, the soldiers of the 69th, we are risking our lives to bring peace to the simple, generous, gay, pious people of France, who anyone (knowing them as I have come to know them in the last six months) must pity and admire and love. They are an invaded people—and invaded people always are right….

Here are nice old ladies, fat babies, jovial humorous men, and little girls just making their First Communions. They’ve been driven out of their pretty sleepy little villages. They want to get back and mend the shell holes in the roof and go to school and take their place drinking red wine of an evening according to their tastes and ages. Well, we men of the 69th are helping to give these people back their homes—and perhaps to prevent our homes from one day being taken from us by the same Power—of whom nothing at all worse need be said than that it is an invader. And St. Patrick, and St. Bridgid, and St. Columkill and all the other Saints are with us—they are no more pacifists than they are Roycrofters! [an arts and crafts guild in New York around the turn of the 20th century founded by self-styled anarchist, Elbert Hubbard] ~ Taken from Joyce Kilmer: Prose Works

Perhaps not coincidentally, Kilmer's last poem was entitled The Peacemaker which I present here in full:

The Peacemaker by Sergeant Joyce Kilmer

Upon his will he binds a radiant chain,
For Freedom’s sake he is no longer free.
It is his task, the slave of Liberty,
With his own blood to wipe away a stain.
That pain may cease, he yields his flesh to pain.
To banish war, he must a warrior be.
He dwells in Night, eternal Dawn to see,
And gladly dies, abundant life to gain.

What matters Death, if Freedom be not dead?
No flags are fair, if Freedom’s flag be furled.
Who fights for Freedom, goes with joyful tread
To meet the fires of Hell against him hurled,
And has for captain Him whose thorn-wreathed head
Smiles from the Cross upon a conquered world.

[Taken from Joyce Kilmer: Memoir and Poems]

While on a scouting mission in no-man's land on July 30, 1918, Joyce Kilmer was shot and killed by a German sniper.

For more about Joyce Kilmer, click here.

For All Saints Day, read about the Saints to enhance your own faith

Click here to share on Facebook.

Wishing you a blessed All Saints Day!

"I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands: And they cried with a loud voice, saying: 'Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb.'" 

~The Apocalypse of Saint John 7:9-10 

May all the saints pray for us who yet labor here on earth! 

The Litany of the Saints: 

Lord, have mercy. 

Christ, have mercy. 

Lord, have mercy. 

Christ, hear us. 

Christ, graciously hear us. 

God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us. 

God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us. 

God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us. 

Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us. 

Holy Mary, pray for us. 

Holy Mother of God, pray for us. 

Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us. 

St. Michael, pray for us. 

St. Gabriel, pray for us. 

St. Raphael, pray for us. 

All you holy Angels and Archangels, pray for us. 

All you holy orders of blessed Spirits, pray for us. 

St. John the Baptist, pray for us. 

St. Joseph, pray for us. 

All you holy Patriarchs and Prophets, pray for us. 

St. Peter, pray for us. 

St. Paul, pray for us. 

St. Andrew, pray for us. 

St. James, pray for us. 

St. John, pray for us. 

St. Thomas, pray for us. 

St. James, pray for us. 

St. Philip, pray for us. 

St. Bartholomew, pray for us. 

St. Matthew, pray for us. 

St. Simon, pray for us. 

St. Thaddeus, pray for us. 

St. Matthias, pray for us. 

St. Barnabas, pray for us. 

St. Luke, pray for us. 

St. Mark, pray for us. 

All you holy Apostles and Evangelists, pray for us.... 

 For the complete litany, click here.

Click for more info.

There are few better ways to enhance and encourage our own faith than by reading of the great words and works of those saints of Jesus Christ who have gone before us. A great collection of over three dozen historical novels on the lives of the saints may be found at the Young Catholic's Bookshelf site here.

If all those books are too overwhelming for you, check out I Am A Christian: Authentic Accounts of Christian Martyrdom and Persecution from the Ancient Sources. This book provides the most ancient accounts of Christian martyrdom to have survived antiquity and, as such, offers a glimpse into how the earliest followers of Christ put their faith into action.

When the world demands acceptance, celebration...and the Eucharist

The recent refusal of a South Carolina priest to give Communion to former vice president Joe Biden has brought back into the mainstream the debate about how to handle loud, public heretics. While discussing this issue, one such case-study emerged on the Drew Mariani radio show yesterday. Listen here for the full backstory: Former VP Joe Biden Denied Communion.

During the show, a caller named “Francis” rang in to tell his own story about how hurtful it is when one is denied Communion. Francis, it seems, is a trans-person who was denied Communion by a particularly cruel priest. Not only did he deny Francis Communion, but this horrible priest had Francis removed from the church by force. Francis told Drew that he is a very devout person, a member of that particular parish for over 40 years, celibate for eight years, and serves in a variety of local Catholic groups. Drew and his guest, a canon lawyer, sympathized with Francis’s situation, and advised him to contact his bishop. Francis assured Drew that he has already told the bishop and that the bishop apologized to him. Furthermore, the police told him that he didn’t do anything wrong.

Francis’s story came across as heartfelt and sincere, and no doubt many of Drew’s listeners sympathized with Francis in the same way that Drew and his guest did.

There’s only one problem. Francis only told one side of the story. For you see, this particular incident happened in my parish and the situation with Francis has been an ongoing and quite public scandal.

In the interest of fairness, I present to you the other side of the story.

Francis was being honest when he said that he had been a member of the parish for over 40 years. During most of that time, he presented as a man. Then suddenly, quite recently, he began showing up for Mass dressed as a woman. Not surprisingly, this caused a scandal, particularly when Francis presented himself for Communion in this guise despite the Church’s clear teachings on transgender behaviors, which even Pope Francis has condemned in no uncertain terms.

The incident Francis described in his call to the Drew Mariani Show did, in fact, happen. But Francis left out a few highly relevant details. First, he was removed from the church after causing a loud and continuous disturbance during Mass when he was not given Communion. Worse, this incident took place during a Mass for the school children when the entire school was gathered together, and included Francis shouting that he is trying to show the children that it’s ok to be transgender. As a result of this incident, adults aside from school teachers are no longer allowed to attend school Masses at our parish. As you might imagine, this change in policy due to one person’s unreasonable demands to be served generated considerable irritation.

Since then, Francis has caused other disturbances during Mass. He has also occasionally appeared in the sacristy dressed as a woman. For those of us with young boys who serve at the altar and who are often in the sacristy preparing for Mass, this is absolutely unacceptable.

I do not claim to know Francis’s motivations, nor am I able to make a good assessment of his mental state. Several of my fellow parishioners have speculated that his purpose is to force the parish to accept his behaviors (which includes using the ladies room at the church while young girls are in it) and, if not, to create problems for our good and holy priest with our bishop and local law enforcement. His actions to date seem to bear out that hypothesis.

And yes, I should point out that our pastor is an outstanding, hard-working, holy priest of many years who wants nothing more than to defend his people from the depravity of the world. The idea that he is somehow awful, rigid, or unsympathetic is, frankly, ludicrous. Again, I can not say with certainty what Francis is truly attempting to accomplish, but I can observe that his actions at the parish do not seem to be those of the devout, innocent, humble follower of Jesus Christ that he portrayed on the Drew Mariani Show.

The ongoing scandal with Francis has been instructive to me as a case-example of what happens when local parishes knuckle under to the urgent demands of the world. For every surrender, new demands will emerge. For every inch of ground that’s ceded, miles more will be required. And for every Francis whose bizarre behaviors are welcomed via the front door no questions asked, a dozen regular Catholic families will exit via the side-door if for no other reason than to protect their children.

I would ask those who carry crosses like the one carried by Francis to put their own wants and needs last in favor of the wants and needs of their fellow Catholics. After all, that's what true love is—willing the good of the other before your own good. Do not cause scandal during Mass, especially in the presence of children. Give serious consideration to the words of Our Lord when he said: "And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea." [Matthew 18:6]

As for the rest of us, we should be very wary of the sympathy-inducing confessional literature that is presented to us by those attempting to inject the novel teachings of the corrupt world into the Holy Catholic Church. Very often, their tales only tell half the story.

Who Was Christopher Columbus? ~ Hero or Villain? Criminal or Crusader?

Statue of Christopher Columbus near the Cooper River, New Jersey.
In January of 2018, vandals threw paint on this statue.

Each year, the media narrative assures us, more Americans are ditching the archaic holiday known as Columbus Day. After all, they claim, what's the point of celebrating a man who brought destruction to the noble and advanced indigenous civilizations of the Americas that lived in harmonious symbiosis with nature? Why glorify a man who introduced the slave trade and who actually didn't discover anything except a brilliant civilization that was already thriving?

Rather than celebrate Columbus, many would now prefer to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day. I assume this would be a new holiday created by modern-day myth-builders of the Liz Warren variety—that is, goofy individuals of European descent who identify as native because it is considered "woke." Sadly, as Catholics can see from the ridiculous antics going on before our eyes at the Amazon Synod, many within the Church have drunk the fire-water and some graying relics of the flower-child generation are now quite open about their preference for the naked state of nature as opposed to the awful, rigid, moralistic confines of Christendom.

However, before the rest of us benighted, non-woke Catholics meekly go along with such brazen script-flipping, we should take a fresh look at the history absent the jaundiced eye of Howard-Zinn-style intellectual dishonesty.

Were there aspects of indigenous pre-Columbian culture that are worth celebrating? Sure. However, the overall human condition in the Americas prior to Columbus's arrival is not something that anyone in their right mind wants to revive. Frankly, when one delves into the primary source material, it’s hard to argue that the perpetual warfare, slavery, torture, cannibalism and other atrocities that existed among the tribes before the arrival of the Europeans was anything other than repulsive. Even at a distance of four hundred years, it's difficult to read such accounts and not lose your lunch.

But let's start with Columbus himself and his motivations. To begin, I think all can agree that Christopher Columbus had many flaws. Though an outspoken and zealous Catholic, Columbus's greatest flaw seems to have been that he was a worldly man of his time. He saw gold everywhere and the desire that his mission be a financial success drove him ever onward. He was fixated on monetary gain largely because he wished to demonstrate to the sovereigns who had put their trust in him—King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain—that they would benefit from his bold venture and that their trust in him had not been misplaced.

That said, one should not assume that Columbus’s eagerness for wealth had anything to do with a desire to live like a an oriental potentate or accrue political power to himself. His own personal comfort and exaltation were often the farthest things from his mind. Instead, he wished to use the wealth he garnered from his discoveries to launch an even greater expedition: a new Crusade to liberate the Holy Land from from Islamic captivity. In this excerpt from a letter written by Columbus to Ferdinand and Isabella on March 4, 1493, we can see Columbus's idealistic intentions clearly in the form of a vow which, in hindsight, seems ridiculously optimistic:

I conclude here: that through the divine grace of He who is the origin of all good and virtuous things, who favors and gives victory to all those who walk in His path, that in seven years from today I will be able to pay Your Highnesses for five thousand cavalry and fifty thousand foot soldiers for the war and conquest of Jerusalem, for which purpose this enterprise was undertaken. And in another five years another five thousand cavalry and fifty thousand foot soldiers, which will total ten thousand cavalry and one hundred thousand foot soldiers. [Taken from Letter to the Sovereigns of 4 March 1493]

If you read more of Columbus's writings, they are littered with similar outbursts of unrestrained enthusiasm for a new crusade against Islam.

When studying any historical figure, context is of the utmost importance. It is worth remembering that in AD 1453, forty years before Columbus's voyage and two years after his birth, Constantinople—that great capital city of the Eastern Roman Empire—was conquered by the Turks. This event sent shock-waves across a Christian Europe which trembled in fear as the Ottomans gathered their strength for additional thrusts to the west. It is within this civilizational context that Columbus's desire for a new crusade funded by riches gained from his discoveries should be understood.

One of the other common criticisms of Columbus is that he attempted to impose slavery upon the peoples he discovered. While this is certainly true, we should remember that in Columbus's day, slavery was practiced throughout the world—in Europe certainly, but with considerably greater vigor and ubiquity in the Islamic east, China, Africa, and, yes, among the native tribes of the Americas themselves. Thus, what Columbus did was in no way novel. If Columbus proposed to the sovereigns of Spain that a slave trade of the warlike Carib Indians could be established in order to offset some of the expenses involved in colonization, his fault may be mitigated somewhat by the brutal practicalities of his age. Similar suggestions, no doubt, could have come from the mouths of courtiers serving the Ottoman Empire, Ming China, Mughal India, Ivan the Great's Russia, or anywhere else at the time. To their credit, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain rejected the idea.

Much is also made of Columbus's ill treatment of the Tainos, the natives of present-day Hispanola. But a reading of his journals shows a much more complicated situation than most quick-history websites will permit. An excellent, primary-source-focused overview of the four voyages of Columbus may be found in an old book edited by Julius E. Olson entitled: The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot [published in 1906]. When perusing the sources provided in this book, the reader will see that even as early as 1493—a year after the discovery—relations between the Spaniards and the native tribes in the Caribbean had already devolved to suspicion and murder. Below, I present a summary of how events occurred soon after Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, complete with excerpts from eyewitness accounts.

It is certainly worth reading these passages before passing judgment on Columbus.

When Columbus's flagship, the Santa Maria, ran aground on Christmas day 1492 off the coast of modern-day Haiti, the admiral was surprised to find ready assistance from a local chief named Guacanagari who helped him offload men and cargo from the stricken ship. So impressed was Columbus with his reception, that he recorded the following initial impression of the Taino in his usual effusive style:

The king (Guacanagari) and all his people wept. They are a loving people, without coventousness, and fit for anything; and I assure your Highnesses that there is no better land or people. They love their neighbors as themselves, and their speech is the sweetest and gentlest in the world, and always with a smile. Men and women go as naked as when their mothers bore them. Your Highnesses should believe that they have very good customs among themselves. The king is a man of remarkable presence, and with a certain self-contained manner that is a pleasure to see. They have good memories, wish to see everything, and ask the use of what they see. [The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, page 201]

After the loss of his flagship, Columbus did not have enough space or provisions to sail back to Spain with all his men. He therefore made a virtue of necessity and decided to leave 44 volunteers behind with the Tainos. To house them, he caused a fort to be constructed which he named La Navidad. Though the Tainos appeared friendly and harmless, Columbus and his comrades were taking no chances. To demonstrate that the Spaniards would be able to help the Tainos defend against their hated enemies, the Caribs, Columbus conducted a military drill in which arquebuses and canon were discharged, much to the shock of the natives. The editor of Columbus's journal summarizes the admiral's concerns and practical rationale as follows: “All this was done that the King (Guacanagari) might look upon the men who were left behind as friends, and that he might also have a proper fear of them.” [The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, page 209]

However, such precautions turned out to be insufficient. Some time after Columbus's departure, the settlement at La Navidad was annihilated. How or why this happened remains a mystery to this day, but when Columbus returned a year later with a much larger expedition, he met with a puzzling welcome. While approaching the site of La Navidad, the Spaniards discovered several dead bodies ashore, at least a few of which were judged to be European due to the presence of a heavy beard. When Columbus's fleet entered the bay where La Navidad had been planted, one of Guacanagari's cousins came out to meet him. Columbus inquired regarding the welfare of the Spanish who had been left in their care, and he received the following response, as taken from the letter of an eyewitness, Dr. Diego Alvarez Chanca:

Guacanagari’s cousin replied that those who remained were all well, but that some of them had died of disease, and others had been killed in quarrels that had arisen among them; and that Guacanagari was at some distance, lying ill of a wound in his leg. [The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, page 300]

If this report relieved Columbus, the relief was not to last. As his ship approached the site of La Navidad, Columbus discharged two cannon as a signal, hoping for a reply from the men at the fort. He was met with silence. Landing near the site, his worst fears were realized: the fort had been burnt and leveled to the ground with no sign of survivors. The few Tainos they encountered seemed reticent and fled at the approach of the Spanish. This was a sharp contrast to the warm welcome Columbus had received the previous year. Eventually, the Spanish were able to coax a few Tainos into conversation, and the full extent of the disaster was revealed. Dr. Chanca relates:

When they were asked concerning the Spaniards, they replied that all of them were dead…The king of Caonabo and Mayreni had made an attack upon them and burnt the buildings on the spot, that many were wounded in the affray, and among them Guacanagari, who had received a wound in his thigh, and had retired to some distance. [The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, page 301]

When Columbus himself arrived on shore, new details began to emerge. Dr. Chanca continues:

We also learned that they had shown where the bodies of eleven of the dead Spaniards were laid, which were already covered with grass that had grown over them; and they all with one voice asserted that Caonabo and Mayreni had killed them; but notwithstanding all this, we began to hear complaints that one of the Spaniards had taken three women to himself, and another four; from whence we drew the inference that jealousy was the cause of the misfortune which had occurred.

For his part, Guacanagari was finally located and he welcomed Columbus with tears, explaining that some of the Spaniards had gone off with Caonabo (another Taino chief) in search of gold and had been slain. Later, Caonabo returned and burned La Navidad as well as Guacanagari's own village. Dr. Chanca tells us that there was much evidence that just such an attack had occurred. However, Dr. Chanca and many of the other Spanish remained suspicious because the wound in Guacanagari's thigh which had supposedly hobbled him, was shown to be completely healed when the Spanish physician removed the bandage and examined it. For what it's worth Guacanagari remained a faithful collaborator with Columbus for the few remaining years of his life, to the point where he was eventually forced to flee to the hills by the other Taino chiefs.

For the Spanish, however, the charred remains of La Navidad spelled the end of any illusions they harbored that the Tainos were a peaceful, loving people. And whereas Columbus had previously portrayed life among them as little short of Eden in his journal entries during his first voyage, suspicion is evident in Dr. Chanca's letter, and the enmity generated by this encounter would later lead to a full-scale war between the Spanish and the Tainos. As a result of this war, subsequent famines, and waves of European diseases that washed over them for which they had no immunity, the Tainos would be almost completely wiped over the next 30 years.

But if the Taino failed to live up to the modern Euro-inspired mythology of native peoples as peace-loving, nature-children innocents, their culture nonetheless compared very favorably to their more savage neighbors, the Caribs. Indeed, it was the Caribs who harassed and preyed upon the Tainos prior to the arrival of the Spanish with a ferocity that can scarcely be imagined. Dr. Chanca, writing during Columbus's second voyage in 1493, describes the interactions between the Caribs and the Tainos as follows:

The habits of these Caribbees are brutal….In their attacks upon the neighboring islands, these people capture as many of the women as they can, especially those who are young and beautiful, and keep them for servants and as concubines. And so great a number do they carry off, that in fifty houses, no men were to be seen, and out of the number of the captives, more than twenty were young girls. These women also say that the Caribbees use them with such cruelty as would scarcely be believed, and that they eat the children which they bear to them, and only bring up those which they have with their native wives. Such of their male enemies as they can take alive, they bring to their houses to slaughter them, and those who are killed, they devour at once. They say that man’s flesh is so good, that there is nothing like it in the world; and this is pretty evident, for of the bones which we found in their houses, they had gnawed everything that could be gnawed, so that nothing remained of them, but what from its great hardness could not be eaten. In one of the houses we found the neck of a man, cooking in a pot.

When they take any boys prisoners, they cut off their member and make use of them as servants until they grow up to manhood, and then when they wish to make a feast, they kill and eat them; for they say that the flesh of boys and women is not good to eat. Three of these boys came fleeing to us thus mutilated. [The Northmen, Columbus and Cabot, page 290]

It should be remembered that it was the Caribs—not the Tainos—that Columbus first attempted to enslave.

None of this is to exculpate the later actions of the Spanish regarding the conquest of the native tribes of the Caribbean. However, by reading some of the eyewitness accounts taken from that time, we are able to get a clearer picture of the cultures Columbus and the first Spanish explorers encountered and their impressions of them. Rather than Eden, the account above of the Caribs and the practices encountered on the islands they inhabited sounds more like a vision of Hell on earth. We should pause before blindly celebrating such cultures, or accepting the false modern stereotype of the native person living in peace and harmony with all creatures and caring for the environment. If the Europeans of those times had deep and abiding flaws, certainly the indigenous cultures did as well.

As for Columbus, the records of his time reveal that he was a man who possessed many of the warts common to Europeans of his time—a harsh worldliness, a lust for wealth, and a tunnel-vision focus on his own goals. But beyond these flaws, Columbus rose well above his contemporaries as a man of unique vision, leadership, perseverance, abnegation, and courage even in the face of death.

It is for these latter attributes that the European discoverer of the Americas ought to be remembered.

We may also celebrate the advent of Christianity in the New World which did much to mitigate the more brutal aspects of both the European and the indigenous American civilizations as they collided in the 16th century. It was Christianity that created an environment in which a humble man like Saint Juan Diego could emerge from the bloodthirsty Mexica peoples and a beautiful lily like Saint Kateri Tekakwitha could bloom among the harsh woodlands of pre-colonial New York State.

As for those modern-day vandals who have no achievements of their own to celebrate but choose instead to tear down the monuments of their ancestors, or to pretend to be descended from native peoples to enhance their own resumes—their words and behaviors should inspire in us nothing but contempt.

New regalia. No Knights.

I don't know who thought this was a good idea--but it's not.

Our parish concluded our beautiful 40 Hours devotion with a glorious Mass last night. It was a celebration of Christ incarnate in the Holy Eucharist and as such, it included profound reverence, gorgeous music, and zealous preaching—the perfect antidote to the secularized Catholic culture which has largely abandoned the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

One aspect that was missing from this Mass as compared to the recent past, however, was the Knights of Columbus. In past years, we would have a dozen or so 4th degree Knights in full regalia present. This year, we had four men in tuxes only, holding the canopy over the Blessed Sacrament during the procession after Mass. Where have all our knights gone?

Well, as it happens, the KoC board of directors decided that as of July 1, 2019, the "old" regalia of the Knights of Columbus is to be discarded. Only the new regalia — which looks like something designed by Hugo Chavez, the deceased socialist dictator of Venezuela — may be worn. As a result, the representation of the Knights in full 4th degree regalia at our 40 Hours went from about 8-12 each year...

...to zero.

Back in 2017, when this controversy first erupted, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson explained the rationale for this change in an email. He said, in part:

"The new uniform is part of a comprehensive and necessary effort to keep our Order relevant and attractive to men, particularly younger men."

If causing the Knights to basically disappear from our parish ceremonies was part of this comprehensive strategy to make the Order "relevant and attractive to men, particularly younger men"...well, great job guys.

I would argue that this type of truly foolish misstep is what commonly happens when you have a group of older guys deciding what they think the younger guys might like. To my brother knight, Mr. Anderson, I would humbly suggest that as long as you are living, no decision is forever and clinging to a bad one in the face of overwhelming evidence only compounds the error. The time has come to rescind this unpopular diktat and reinstate the old regalia. Or at least give our brothers permanent permission to wear it.

Or, you can keep enforcing this bad decision until the membership goes the
way of the Sisters of Mercy or Sisters of Saint Joseph.

As for myself, a 4th Degree Knight who never joined the color guard but looked forward to doing so when the responsibilities of middle age subsided, I have no desire to dress like a South American socialist dictator. Perhaps at some point I'll inherit someone's "old" regalia which I can keep in a closet until it may be worn again without disobeying the mandates of the guys at the top.

"Don John of Austria is going to the war." ~ October 7, feast of Our Lady of the Rosary

Click here to share this image on Facebook.

October 7 is the Feast of our Lady of the Rosary, formerly the feast of Our Lady of Victory. The date marks the 448th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, AD 1571.

The Battle of Lepanto was a miraculous victory in which the combined ships of the Christian Holy League under Don John of Austria, defeated the fleet of the Ottoman Empire in a decisive battle that blocked Turkish imperial aggression from the western Mediterranean. Six years before in AD 1565, the Knights of Saint John had gained a similarly miraculous victory over the Turks at the Siege of Malta which prevented the invaders from establishing a base from which to attack Italy. With the triumph of Lepanto, Turkish sea-power would never again threaten western Christendom on such a scale and with such high hopes of success.

Prior to the Battle of Lepanto, Pope Pius V had enjoined all of Christendom (sadly fractured by the Protestant revolution) to pray the Rosary for the success of campaign. The sailors of Don John also recited the Rosary prior to the battle. The resulting victory was attributed completely to the intercession of our Lady.

The quote on this image is taken from G. K. Chesterton's poem, Lepanto, which reads in part:

But a noise is in the mountains, in the mountains, and I know
The voice that shook our palaces--four hundred years ago:
It is he that saith not 'Kismet'; it is he that knows not Fate;
It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey at the gate!
It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth,
Put down your feet upon him, that our peace be on the earth."
For he heard drums groaning and he heard guns jar,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
Sudden and still--hurrah!
Bolt from Iberia!
Don John of Austria
Is gone by Alcalar."

Read this entire work here at the American Chesterton Society website.

Or listen to a nice reading of the poem here done by the folks at Unam Sanctam Catholicam.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for the Church which is in distress!

"You Urge Me to Make a New Work from the Old" ~ September 30, Feast of St. Jerome

Saint Jerome instructs Saint Paula and Saint Eustochium in this 16th century
painting by Francisco de Zurbarán.

For this date in the year AD 420, the Chronicon of Prosper of Aquitaine (written in the mid-5th century) contains the following notice:

Hieronimus presbyter moritur anno aetatis suae XCI pridie kalendas Octobris.

That is, in English: “The priest Jerome died at the age of 91 on 30 September.”

His full name was Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, but he is known to later ages simply as Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church. Along with Augustine of Hippo, Jerome was one of the most voluminous scholars of antiquity whose works have come down to us. In his own book entitled: De Viris Illustribus, Jerome provides the following staggering summary of his written works:

I, JEROME, son of Eusebius, of the city of Strido, which is on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia and was overthrown by the Goths, up to the present year, that is, the fourteenth of the Emperor Theodosius, have written the following: Life of Paul the monk, one book of Letters to different persons, an Exhortation to Heliodorus, Controversy of Luciferianus and Orthodoxus, Chronicle of universal history, 28 homilies of Origen on Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which I translated from Greek into Latin, On the Seraphim, On Osanna, On the prudent and the prodigal sons, On three questions of the ancient law, Homilies on the Song of Songs two, Against Helvidius, On the perpetual virginity of Mary, To Eustochius, On maintaining virginity, one book of Epistles to Marcella, a consolatory letter to Paula On the death of a daughter, three books of Commentaries on the epistle of Paul to the Galatians, likewise three books of Commentaries on the epistle to the Ephesians, On the epistle to Titus one book, On the epistle to Philemon one, Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, one book of Hebrew questions on Genesis, one book On places in Judea, one book of Hebrew names, Didymus on the Holy Spirit, which I translated into Latin one book, 39 homilies on Luke, On Psalms 10 to 16, seven books, On the captive Monk, The Life of the blessed Hilarion. I translated the New Testament from the Greek, and the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and how many Letters I have written To Paula and Eustochius I do not know, for I write daily. I wrote moreover, two books of Explanations on Micah, one book On Nahum, two books On Habakkuk, one On Zephaniah, one On Haggai, and many others On the prophets, which are not yet finished, and which I am still at work upon. {Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Chapter CXXXV]

Jerome’s writings are filled with anecdotes of historical import. One such work is his famous letter to Eustochium mentioned above which he wrote to a young woman who had recently taken a vow of perpetual virginity. Also called De Custodia Virginitatis (On Maintaining Virginity) and written in AD 384, this lengthy missive is filled with allusions to the type of moral behavior prevalent in Rome of late antiquity, not withholding his condemnation from Christians in high places who behaved hypocritically. Here is one example from the letter:

Today you may see women cramming their wardrobes with dresses, changing their gowns from day to day, and for all that unable to vanquish the moths. Now and then one more scrupulous wears out a single dress; yet, while she appears in rags, her boxes are full. Parchments are dyed purple, gold is melted into lettering, manuscripts are decked with jewels, while Christ lies at the door naked and dying. When they hold out a hand to the needy they sound a trumpet; when they invite to a love-feast they engage a crier. I lately saw the noblest lady in Rome — I suppress her name, for I am no satirist — with a band of eunuchs before her in the basilica of the blessed Peter. She was giving money to the poor, a coin apiece; and this with her own hand, that she might be accounted more religious. Hereupon a by no means uncommon incident occurred. An old woman, full of years and rags, ran forward to get a second coin, but when her turn came she received not a penny but a blow hard enough to draw blood from her guilty veins. [De Custodia Virginitatis, Chapter 32]

Jerome here foreshadows the tone of Saint John Chrysostom who would write only a little later. Also in the same letter, Jerome admits that the course Eustochium had chosen for herself will be difficult and fraught with peril. But he encourages her to endure by holding fast to Christ:

Love finds nothing hard; no task is difficult to the eager. Think of all that Jacob bore for Rachel, the wife who had been promised to him. Jacob, the Scripture says, served seven years for Rachel. And they seemed unto him but a few days for the love he had to her. [Genesis 29:20] Afterwards he himself tells us what he had to undergo. In the day the drought consumed me and the frost by night. [Genesis 31:40] So we must love Christ and always seek His embraces. Then everything difficult will seem easy; all things long we shall account short… [Jerome, De Custodia Virginitatis, Chapter 40]

But perhaps the most famous work of Saint Jerome was his Latin translation of Sacred Scripture. This task was enjoined upon him by Pope Damasus in AD 384 and not completed until over twenty years later. This monumental labor would result in the creation of a work which would come to be known in later years as the Latin Vulgate—the standard version of Sacred Scripture in the Latin language. In his preface on the Gospels, Jerome himself explains why he undertook this tremendous task which would cause his name to be well remembered even 1,600 years after his death:

To the blessed Pope Damasus, from Jerome,

You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books?

Against such infamy I am consoled by two causes: that it is you, who are the highest priest, who so orders, and truth is not to be what might vary, as even now I am vindicated by the witness of slanderers. If indeed faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books! If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. [Jerome, Preface to the Gospels]

The complete works of Saint Jerome are a vast treasure-trove of information on life and Christian belief in the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD. If you dare to dip your toe into this ocean of late antique data, helpfully translated into English, click the link below [Note, this link will open up a PDF in your browser sourced from documentacatholicaomnia.eu]:

The Principal Works of Saint Jerome.

"Let Us Have No Mock-Emperors!" ~ The Battle of Mursa Major, AD 351

The portly profile of Magnentius may be seen on this
bronze follis from AD 352.

On this date in AD 351, the armies of the Western usurper Magnus Magnentius suffered a major defeat at the battle of Mursa Major in the Roman province of Pannonia—present day Croatia. Magnentius had decided to risk battle with the superior forces of Constantius II, the sole remaining son of Constantine the Great. This bloody conflict—which pitted tens of thousands of veteran Roman soldiers against each other—would have a profound negative impact on manpower resources of the Empire in the years ahead.

After the death of Constantine the Great in AD 337, the Roman Empire was divided among his three sons: Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II. After a few years, this status quo proved untenable. As the elder brother, Constantine II felt that his share of the empire was insufficient, and began making demands on the youngest, Constans, who ruled Italy, Africa and Illyricum. For three years, Constans appeared to concede to his domineering brother’s requests. However, when Constantine continued to press his demands for territory in Africa, Constans struck. He arranged an ambush and had Constantine assassinated. The territories of Constantine II were then absorbed into the dominions of Constans.

Still a young man (probably about 17 when he disposed of his older brother) and now possessed of the entire West, Constans proved an energetic defender of the frontiers and a good ruler—at least at first. By AD 350, however, his disgusting personal vices and tendency to shower favors upon his barbarian guardsmen who committed crimes without check, blackened his name across much of his domain. The early 6th century historian, Zosimus, explains what happened next and how Magnentius rose to contend for the imperial power:

Constans, having thus removed his brother, exercised every species of cruelty toward his subjects, exceeding the most intolerable tyranny. He purchased some well favored Barbarians, and had others with him as hostages, to whom he gave liberty to harrass his subjects as they pleased, in order to gratify his vicious disposition. In this manner he reduced all the nations that were subject to him to extreme misery.

This gave uneasiness to the court guards, who perceiving that he was much addicted to hunting, placed themselves under the conduct of Marcellinus prefect of the treasury, and Magnentius who commanded the Joviani and Herculiani (two legions so termed), and formed a plot against him in the following manner.

Marcellinus reported that he meant to keep the birth-day of his sons, and invited many of the superior officers to a feast. Amongst the rest Magnentius rose from table and left the room. He presently returned, and as it were in a drama stood before them clothed in an imperial robe. Upon this all the guests saluted him with the title of king, and the inhabitants of Augustodunum, where it was done, concurred in the same sentiment. This transaction being rumored abroad, the country people flocked into the city, while at the same time, a party of Illyrian cavalry who came to supply the Celtic legions, joined themselves with those that were concerned in the enterprize. When the officers of the army were met together, and heard the leaders of the conspiracy proclaim their new emperor, they scarcely knew the meaning of it. They all, however, joined in the acclamation, and saluted Magnentius with the appellation of Augustus.

When this became known to Constans, he endeavored to escape to a small town called Helena, which lies near the Pyrenean mountains. He was taken by Gaison, who was sent with some other select persons for that purpose, and being destitute of all aid, was killed. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Magnentius soon found other western usurpers undercutting his authority. Vetranio was proclaimed emperor in Illyricum at the request of Constantia, daughter of Constantine the Great and sister of the slain Constans. At Rome, Nepotianus, the nephew of Constans and his brothers, raised a rebellion with a large band of gladiators. Magnentius soon quashed Nepotianus and opened negotiations with Vetranio while Constantius II was bogged down in a dangerous war with Persia on the eastern frontier.

This situation endured for a year and it seemed likely that Magnentius and Vetranio would be recognized as co-Augusti along with Constantius II. The son of Constantine, however, had other ideas and made a bold move, perhaps prompted by a miraculous vision of a cross in Jerusalem. Zosimus continues:

Meantime Constantius advanced from the east against Magnentius, but deemed it best first to win over Vetranio to his interest, as it was difficult to oppose two rebels at once. On the other hand, Magnentius used great endeavors to make Vetranio his friend, and thus to put an end to the war against Constantius. Both therefore sent agents to Vetranio, who chose to adopt the friendship of Constantius rather than that of Magnentius. The ambassadors of Magnentius returned without effecting their purpose.

Constantius desired that both armies might join, to undertake the war against Magnentius. To which proposal Vetranio readily assented, and they seated themselves on a throne provided for the occasion. Constantius, speaking first according to his dignity, endeavored to remind the soldiers of his father's munificence, and of the oaths they had taken to he true to his children. He then told them, that they ought not to suffer Magnentius to go unpunished, who had murdered the son of Constantine, with whom they had fought many battles, and had been generously remunerated. When the soldiers heard this, having been previously corrupted by valuable presents, they cried out, that they would have no mock emperors, and immediately began to strip the purple from Vetranio, and pulled him from the throne. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Reverse side of the above coin.
VOT V, MULT X on the shield refers
to vows taken by Magnentius to ensure
a five and ten year reign.

Constantius II showed mercy to the more aged Vetranio and allowed him to retire to an estate in Bithynia to live out the rest of his life.

This action set the stage for the great battle of Mursa Major. Constantius II marched his army into Pannonia and sought to bring Magnentius to battle. The cagey usurper withdrew, preferring to attempt to ambush the superior forces of Constantius. At least one of these ambushes achieved the desired result and weakened a part of Constantius’s army. This success convinced Magnentius to muster all his troops and attempt a decisive battle.

Alarmed, Constantius sent one of his bravest and most trusted officers, a man named Philip, into Magnentius's camp, ostensibly to treat for peace. In reality, Philip’s purpose was to determine the state of Magnentius’s army and to undermine their morale. This Philip did. As luck would have it, when Philip arrived at Magnentius’s camp, the whole army was drawn up in ranks. Philip immediately addressed himself to them in the following terms, according to the account of Zosimus:

[Philip began by telling the soldiers] that it did not become them, who were Roman subjects, to make war on Romans, especially as the emperor was the son of Constantine, with whom they had erected many trophies over the Barbarians. That Magnentius, moreover, ought to remember Constantine, and the kindness he had shewn to him and to his parents. That it was Constantine who had protected him when in imminent danger, and exalted him to the highest dignities. Having made these observations, he requested Magnentius to depart from Italy, and to be content with the government of the nations beyond the Alps. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

This speech nearly caused the army of Magnentius to mutiny. In alarm, Magnentius addressed them, saying that he desired peace with Constantius and would confer with his officers to determine how best to bring this about. The next day, he addressed his army as follows:

He reminded them of the injuries they received from Constans when furious and intoxicated. That the soldiers could not sustain the enormities with which he oppressed the state contrary to all law and justice, but had inclined to what was most for the public advantage, and that after they had freed the cities from so savage a monster, they had compelled him to become their emperor. [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Almost before Magnentius had concluded his speech, his army rose up and repented of their earlier near-rebellion. They declared themselves ready to fight immediately. With the hopes for a peaceful resolution waning, the two forces attempted to position themselves advantageously, retreating, feinting and advancing to choose a field of battle that best suited their particular strengths. From the account in Zosimus, it seems that Magnentius attempted to position his force between Constantius II and his base of operations in the east, taking cities along Constantinus's lines of communication. He was stymied, however, at the city of Mursa in Pannonia which held out against him. It was there that Constantius caught up with Magnentius and a full-scale battle ensued. Zosimus describes the unique lead-up to the conflict:

When he therefore heard that Constantius was near Mursa, [Magnentius] invented another stratagem to this effect. There was before the city a stadium or place of exercise, formerly used by those that fought for prizes, which was covered over with wood. In this he concealed four companies of Celtae, with orders when Constantius should come up, and they were ready to engage before the city, to attack the enemy by surprise, and to surround them and kill every man. This being discovered by those [friendly to Constantius] that were on the walls, Constantius immediately sent thither Scolidoas and Manadus, two of his officers. They first selected the choicest of their men, both heavy armed and archers, and taking them along with themselves, fastened up all the doors of the stadium. Having then possessed themselves of the upper steps loading into the Stadium, and inclosed the soldiers that were within on all sides, they threw darts at them. And observing some of them with their shields placed over their heads attempting to force open the doors, they fell upon them and did not cease throwing darts or cutting at them with their swords until they had killed them all. This project of Magnentius being thus frustrated, the armies met and engaged in the plain before Mursa, where such a battle was fought as had not occurred before in the course of this war, and great numbers fell on both sides...

At the beginning of the battle, it appears that some of Magnentius's men, led by a Frankish tribune named Silvanus, defected to the side of Constantius [Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman Antiquities, Book XV]. While this loss was injurious to his cause, Magnentius and his supporters fought on stoutly: 

...[The army] of Magnentius became more furious, nor would they cease fighting though night came on, but even their officers continued performing what belonged to common soldiers, and encouraging their men to oppose the enemy with vigor. On the other side likewise, the officers of Constantius called to mind the ancient bravery and renown of the Romans. Thus the battle continued until it was completely dark, nor did even darkness cause them to relax ; but they wounded each other with spears, swords or whatever was in their reach, so that neither night nor any other obstacle which usually causes some respite in war, could put an end to the slaughter, as if they thought it the greatest felicity that could happen to them to perish beside each other. Amongst the officers, that shewed great bravery in this battle and fell in it were Arcadius, commander of the legion called Abulci, and Menelaus, who commanded the Armenian horse archers. What is said of Menelaus is worthy of being related. He could take three darts at once, and with one shot hit three men, by which manner of shooting he killed a great, number of the enemy, and was himself almost the cause of their flight. He was killed by Romulus, who was the first in command in the army of Magnentius, and Romulus himself fell at the same time. He was wounded by a dart which Menelaus had thrown at him, yet continued fighting after he had received the wound, until he had killed the person who had given it to him.

Constantius now gaining the victory, by the army of Magnentius taking to flight, a terrible slaughter ensued. Magnentius, therefore being deprived of all hope, and apprehensive lest the remnant of his army should deliver him to Constantius, deemed it best to retire from Pannonia, and to enter Italy... [Zosimus, New History, Book II]

Magnentius mananged to survive another year before being cornered and slain at the battle of Mons Seleucus in southern Gaul in AD 353.

It is likely that Constantius felt that the Battle of Mursa Major, though a victory, was a horrible waste. Clearly, from the description above, many of the bravest imperial soldiers fell fighting each other, with some modern estimates going as high as 54,000 slain between both sides. Zosimus, writing with the advantage of historical hindsight, puts the thought in Constantius's mind that: "as this was a civil war, victory itself would be scarcely an advantage to him, now the Romans being so much weakened, as to be totally unable to resist the barbarians who attacked them on every side." 

After Magnentius's final defeat, Constantius II would go on to rule the Empire as the sole Augustus until AD 361 when his nephew, Julian the Apostate, rose against him. As an interesting side note, the wife of Magnentius—a woman named Justina—would go on to become the wife of the emperor Valentinian I, mother of Valentinian II, and become better known to history as the Arian persecutor of Saint Ambrose of Milan.