
CRITICAL CATHOLIC COMMENTARY
in the Twilight of Reason

Mary, Conceived without
Sin,
pray for us who
have recourse to thee
___________________________________________________________________________
“… or in another language.”

Why Leo’s Eliminating Latin as
the Language of the Church ...
will Result in Irrecoverable Loss
for the Catholic Church
§1. The curial institutions will normally draft their
acts
in Latin or in another language.”
*
In
less than six months, Pope Leo
XIV has made one of the most significant steps toward the
de-construction of Catholicism since 1963
The Roman
Catholic Church
as a Magisterial institution possessing the inexpungable character of divine certainty,
has
One-Thousand-Six-Hundred-Years-and-Ten-Months ...
Latin is the language through which the
Roman Catholic Church has uniquely and definitively expressed
itself for at least the 1,600-years-and-10 months prior to Pope
Leo XIV’s shocking and sweeping mandate on November 24, 2025
that pronouncements of the Church’s curial offices are no longer
to be exclusively rendered in Latin, but “in Latin or in
another language.”
Despite rhetoric to
the contrary, this is a monumental shift in paradigm. Until Leo XIV,
every “Curial act” had been, until last month, been “drafted” by
default in Latin as it had been for at least 1,600 years.
Are we to really
to believe that this latitude in language — the rendering
of official documents in (multiple)vernacular languages —
implicitly by the Curia alone, although this is carefully
not stated — is not a segue into the wholesale repudiation of
Latin as constituting a distinctly Catholic
impediment to an evolving pan-Ecumenism (and most especially in
Europe, to Protestantism)?
Truly, are we to
believe the Church no longer possesses the intellectual, scholarly,
and linguistic assets that had made her the envy of the civilized
world for 2000 years? Her scholars, her Bollandists, her Latinists
are no longer capable of translating into the vernacular of every
nation to which she has brought the light of Faith for millennia
past … what their predecessors had up to November 25, 2025?
Of course
this is a rhetorical question!
What, then, is the
impetus to this change that will inevitably, indeed, undoubtedly,
not merely impede, but necessarily destroy the very
possibility of virtually any univocal utterance,
written or spoken, in the Church.
Leo’s move will
forever frustrate any attempt to arrive at universally accepted
and indisputable meaning, any precise denotation of
words or phrases that allow for no equivocation — and to
which all divergent or competing translations can appeal as to an
absolute arbiter in any dispute.
For this alone is
the vocabulary necessary for and indispensable to doctrine
and dogma.
A Dramatic
Shift in Paradigm
I will argue that there are
not simply compelling, but indisputable reasons that the Roman
Catholic Church, prior to Leo, used Latin not as just a theological,
but a precise juridical, pedagogical, archival, and institutional
language.
Why, in a dramatic shift of
paradigm, Leo has apparently chosen otherwise, we can only speculate
upon — which I will not do. However, if we choose the least
contentious (but misleading) explanation we will probably arrive
at something like the following:
Drafts only?
If we argue that by its explicit
wording this paragraph pertains to “drafts” only, that
is to say, to preliminary versions, tentative in nature
only, and understood as being presented in a provisional
form waiting to be rendered into the logical and historical
framework of the 1,600-year Latin in which, and through
which, the Church has always articulated itself, its dogmas,
and its doctrines, then all is well.
It nevertheless remains that
even in their most articulate vernacular form, these several
(many?) languages can only, and at best, approximate
any Latin version —and will, at worst, deviate from it.
Either Latin cannot be reconciled with these vernaculars, or
these vernaculars cannot be reconciled with Latin.
This leaves the Roman Revisionists
with an uncomfortable choice: one language group must be left
out in the cold. They cannot choose to leave out Latin without
undermining the very historical framework and foundation upon
which the Church exists. But given the Leonine mandate how,
then, shall they proceed?
What is more, without a single
language invested with what attains to apodictic certainty through
nearly two millennia of historical authority through unbroken
doctrinal, juridical, and theological form — in Latin — a single
authoritative linguistic source, to which every “other language”
must appeal or submit to in the way of final and decisive denotation,
providing both recourse and redress to competing
vernaculars. A plurality of languages clearly cannot achieve
this.
On the
other hand …
If this indeed is the
case, why bother to add the disjunctive “or”
(“or in another language.”) in the first place?
What is the purpose of introducing this qualification at
all?
That is to say, if the directive
that, “The curial institutions will normally draft their
acts in Latin or in another language” does not constitute
a clear divergence from the unique historical language of the
Church, why is it directed to do so in “another”
language, not simply as permissive, but in so stating,
implicitly endowing “another” (any language) with the
same historically stable and unique characteristics that are
inherent within, and inextricable from Latin? Especially in
the way of precision and immutability (I will explain a bit
further on)?
Notice, too, that the word
“will” is used as an imperative — not “can,” nor “are
allowed to,” but is applied with equal force to
both the vernacular and the Latin — but how can
this possibly be?
A literal Latin composition
will always differ from every vernacular rendering. What
is more, each and every translation distinct from the
Latin will differ not just from any “optional,” “alternate,”
or even “concurrent” Latin rendering — but from each other
as well. In other words, every vernacular translation
will be applied without prejudice to each other. All
will be “correct” despite any nuance within, or latent conflict
between, them.
To further complicate matters,
given many translators (and assuming that each translator possesses
a mastery of the subtleties inherent in their own language)
and subsequent revisions by still other translators
within that language, the combined likelihood of a divergence
in translation between languages is not just “possible”— but
inescapable.
What does
this mean for the Church?
In abrogating the only
non-evolving language — Ecclesiastical Latin — the
language through which alone the stringent conceptual
architecture of the Church has been articulated, sustained,
and preserved, defining its dogma, and sixteen millennia of
doctrine — the Magisterium of the Church will be divided
between the Church of roughly 1600 years prior to Pope Leo XIV,
and the post-Leonine Magisterium articulated, not through
one, but through many languages in many translations.
In a word, should this prove to be the case, it is a move away
from apodictic Magisterial certainty.
If this is what Leo
XIV intends, it is not just momentous, but potentially catastrophic,
and this is why: the distinct linguistic morphology of Latin
is not shared by any other language — it possesses
an unparalleled and historically embedded matrix of denotation
and meaning — not only which has been — but
in which it has been — consistently
propagated through sixteen centuries in a way indispensable
to matters doctrinal and juridical within Holy Mother Church.
Any appeal to certainty
— a certainty absolutely vital to doctrine and unimpeachable
Magisterium — that falls short of an unequivocal standard
to which all translations must appeal for univocal
substantiation — and which alone can exclude all possible translational
doubt — of itself subverts the very certainty that it
seeks, or must abolish apodictic certainty itself — and with
it, Holy Mother Church.
Why?
The
Roman Catholic Church is the only institution in the
world that (for 2000 years) has claimed absolute certainty
concerning its dogmatic and doctrinal utterances. No other
religion has made, or been able to make this claim, and
possessed the credentials for doing so, and certainly no social
or political institution in history has made a pretense to
indefeasible ideological claims. Polities and societies
change, and such changes are integral to the institutions
which articulated them. But this is not so for the Church — nor
can it be. The very notion of something to be logically
understood as dogma and doctrine, and at the
same time being questionable and uncertain, is simply an abuse
of language. Dogma is certainty. Doctrine is
certainty. If, henceforth, the teachings of Holy Mother Church
no longer — because they can no longer — be
understood as unequivocal and categorically certain, then the
Church forfeits her right to teach anything absolute, and
with that forfeiture, the historical certainty of her
Magisterium as of Leo’s
devastating change on
November 24, 2025.
This, of
course, will not play out instantly; no more than the devastating
changes following the implementation of Vatican II played out
immediately — but it is now following a trajectory well established
since 1963 and brought to ruinous fruition in the decades that soon
followed.
How
tragic that the pathological mentality of the 60s so aggressively
leached into the Catholic Church, and persists in it with a
virulence seen nowhere else.
Perhaps
it is due, in part, to the cardinals and bishops who,
almost without exception, were and are of that
generation, or the children of that generation, both of
whom were indoctrinated in the
“counterculture”
of the 60s: rebellion against authority and established form
(behavioral, moral, artistic, literary, etc.), revolution,
experimentation, unrestrained freedom of expression (much as we had
found in the countless iterations of the Novus Ordo Mass)
resistance, the inauguration of Earth Day (and environmentalism)
in 1970 (and consecrated in the Church by Pope Francis in
Laudate si and
Laudate Deum).
There
is, however, another part: something primeval,
something insidiously deep and dark that I cannot shake, an
ontological menace I cannot ignore. A someone that is a
“something”
— the name of which I will not dignify to utter — now crouches in
the corner and lurks among the shadows of men, and I believe that it
is profoundly involved in the unfolding of the uncertainty to
follow.
_________________________
* “General Regulations of the Roman Curia, 24.11.2025
Title XIII
LANGUAGES IN USE
Art. 50
§1. The curial institutions [*] will normally draft their
acts in Latin or in another language.”
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/11/24/0896/01618.html
In Corde Immaculato Mariae
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
December 18, 2025
Feast of
St. Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli
and martyr
___________________________________________________________________________
The Most Urgent Question
of Our Time:
“When
the Son of Man Comes, will He Find Faith on Earth?”
(St. Luke 18.8)
No
more stunning,
no more frightening, and perhaps no more ominously portentous
words are spoken in all the Gospels, in fact, in the
entire New Testament — perhaps even in the entirety
of Sacred Scripture itself; words that have become increasingly
fraught with significance with every passing year of
the most unfortunate papacy of Francis — a papacy not
just likely … but I believe with certainty … will
be understood not simply as among the worst … but the
worst … the most destructive to the Faith and to the
Church in the annals of 2000 years of Church history.
Indeed, with every generation following that devastating
Second Vatican Council — that scorched earth assault
on Tradition and historical Catholicism — the question
increasingly verges on an implied and obvious answer.
Indeed, we must wonder if the question that Christ poses
… “When the Son of Man comes will He find Faith on earth?”
… is, in fact, spoken of this generation, or of one
soon — very soon, to come. As with so many of Christ’s teachings, this troubling question
is too often and too deftly explained away — especially
by the overwhelming number of the liberal theologians
and bishops who have proliferated and multiplied since
1962 — which is to say, by “the
learned and the wise”. If we heed them, it would
appear that either Christ does not know what He
is saying, or we do not know what He is saying
— although we all agree that He said something
... that sounds suspiciously clear.
We must, however, pay careful attention to these twelve
words, …. perhaps more now than at any other time in Church history.
“When the Son of Man
comes will He find Faith on earth?”
These are twelve words, however, to which we must pay
careful attention, perhaps more now than at any other
time in Church history.
However reluctant we are to take Christ at His word
— which becomes increasingly inconvenient to us — we
must recognize that Jesus never spoke idly: His words,
His teachings — and yes, His Commandments — were
always uttered to one explicit end: the salvation of
souls — attaining to Heaven and everlasting happiness
and to avoiding Hell and eternal misery.
The Jewish religious authorities —
“the learned” of His own
time — had scornfully dismissed Christ’s warning that
not so much as stone would remain standing in the great
Temple 1
... the very Temple within which, 70 years later, these
words were fulfilled when Rome laid waste in days what
took 46 years to build.
We tend to view such alarming statements made by Jesus
— and there are many — with the same scorn and disdain
today.
Indeed ... what has become of the “Faith of our Fathers?”
A mere fifty years ago we ourselves would have instinctively
replied “Of course He will find faith! There
simply must be some deeper, some obscure and less evident
meaning to this that we do not presently understand
— and what He appears to be saying, He is
not really saying at all. Surely the “learned” of
our own day can deftly explain the answer to this troubling
question. In the end, they will conclude, Jesus is
really asking something entirely different from what
He appears to be asking and that it has nothing
to do with our very real defection from the Faith.”
It is likely that many Jews of Jesus’ time — both the
learned and the unlearned — had replied in much the
same way. In fact, they did.
In other words, to us, our faith, the Faith of the Catholic
Church for two millennia, could no sooner disappear
than ... well, the stones of the great Temple 2000 years
ago!
If, however, we take a careful inventory of our present
and undeniably dismal and increasingly scandalous situation
in the Church — especially as it has unfolded in the
last five decades — Jesus does not quite appear as ...
“perplexing” ... as so many apparently make Him to be.
Candidly
Ask yourself the following:
Has the Faith — the Catholic Faith — flourished
in the last 50 years, or has it withered?
Are vocations to the Priesthood and Religious life
growing or dwindling?
Are Catholics having more children or are they
having fewer children?
Are Missionary efforts, to the end of (dare we
say it?) “conversion” as mandated by Christ
encouraged
as intrinsic to Catholicism — or are they discouraged
as impolite, obtrusive, culturally imperialistic and
inherently inimical to the “Ecumenical spirit of Vatican
II” — especially as interpreted by Pope Francis for
whom “proselytism is solemn nonsense,” to use his own
words, words that mock the sacrifices of countless
missionary saints through the 2000 years preceding Vatican
II’s
“more enlightened”
understanding of the
Great Commission*?
Rather, we find that “conversion” to Christ and His
Church is actively discouraged — that especially
under Pope Francis it is no longer understood as
a holy and inherently necessary endeavor — instead,
it is disdained, even dismissed, as “socially and culturally
incorrect” — indeed, we find that promoting our
Catholic Faith — as Christ has commanded us to—
has been forbidden by Francis and his “progressive”
coterie of feckless and disaffected cardinals and bishops!
What pope, prior to Vatican II, could ever have envisioned
this?
Is our understanding of the Catholic Church, as an
absolutely unique institution indispensable to the
ordinary means of salvation, emphasized as urgently
today (if it is emphasized at all) as it was a hundred
years ago? Fifty years ago? Indeed, is the concept itself
— of the singularity and indispensability of the Holy
Catholic Church — still deemed an actual dogma
and a viable concept at all?
For all our insolence and equivocation, we know the
answers, and we are uncomfortable with them, for they
fly in the face of Christ and all that He taught — to
say nothing of Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and
the Sacred Deposit of the Faith entrusted to the Catholic
Church by God Himself.
Indeed, Christ’s question takes on a greater sense of
urgency still, for the sheep are scattered and confused
as never before. The papacy of Francis has been disastrous
for the Church. Why? Precisely because he has taken
Vatican II to its logical conclusion: the irrelevance
of the Church.
Ubi
est Pastor?
Where is the Shepherd?
Who is earnestly addressing this spiritual malaise and
religious decay due to the indolence and dereliction
of the vast majority of American and European bishops
who appear far more eager for secular plaudits than
the now quaint and discredited notion of “the salvation
of souls.” Pope Francis has effectively declared this
mandate defunct in favor of the rehabilitation of bodies,
societies, economies, and “the environment”. That the
passing material environment of man is infinitely
less important than the eternal abode of his
soul, often appears to elude Francis. Indeed, it appears
to elude most Catholics whose mantra increasingly coincides
with the world’s: Social activism! ... not interior conversion away from this world ... and
to Christ.
Shame! Shame on us!
By our silence, our fear of being
disparaged by “other Catholics” for the sake of Christ,
we condone this travesty — are complicit in it
... even promote it!
What will motivate us to recognize, and to redress,
this frightful and ultimately deadly state of affairs?
There are, after all, other contenders in this world
for the souls of men ... seen and unseen! As our own
wick smolders, others blaze! The burning Crescent of
Islam, poised like a scimitar, and every bit as deadly,
glows and grows in the east, and with it, not an ethnic, but a
Religious Cleansing
to which the world remains indifferent — an expunging
of every vestige of Christianity in partibus infidelium.
And even Islam has its secular collaborators: the European
Union — once a continent raised up from utter barbarism
to a civilization formed and ennobled by its Catholic
heritage — will no longer tolerate the inclusion of
its indissoluble Christian heritage within its Constitution.
Not only does it thoroughly repudiate its own Christian
cultural heritage — it prohibits it — even banishes it! This is nothing less than self-loathing.
And perhaps it ought to be.
Surely, then, in our effort to remedy this impending
state of dissolution, we will first turn to our bishops,
since they are, preeminently, the “Teachers and Guardians
of the Faith”. But more often than not — much more often
than not — in the well-appointed office at the end of
the corridor we do not find a shepherd of souls but
a deeply sequestered, occasionally avuncular, and predictably
remote ... “administrator.”
Relegating his prime responsibility as Teacher and Promoter
of the Faith ... to others, in the form of Lay committees
and subcommittees largely “chaired” by liberal Catholics
more concerned with social issues than the salvation
of souls, are we confident that the patrimony of our
faith will somehow percolate through this strata of
already contaminated soil and reach our children authentically
and intact? Is our fear mitigated ... or further exacerbated
... by our bishops’ resolute lack of diligence in being
attentive to what Catholic colleges and theologians
in their own dioceses are really teaching — and who
are teaching the teachers ... who, in turn, are teaching
our children?
Do you think that your bishop actually — that is to
say, cognitively — is aware of, or even concerned with
— what the teachers themselves are actually teaching?
Not in this diocese. Not
in Boston. In fact, the former Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley had
routinely feted, praised, and held up as exemplary,
the clueless “Catechists” who churn out our children
to the Sacrament of Confirmation — with no clue whatever
of that in which they are being confirmed. By comparison,
even the dismal failure of our public schools in Boston
must be deemed a stunning success.
For most of us — especially in the Archdiocese of Boston,
but no less elsewhere — the answer is, as they say,
a “no-brainer:” it is a universally resounding no.
Most of us find, to our growing dismay and deepening
cynicism, that our bishops appear to have “more important,”
more ... “pressing” things to do ... than to communicate
the Faith to the faithful ... especially the children.
Really, we beg the question: if no one teaches the teachers
— who, then, teaches the children? If they are not brought
the faith by those to whom it has been entrusted — the
bishops, the episcopacy — who will bring it to them? Will they —
how can they — acquire the Faith
... if no one brings it to them? Saint Paul is very
clear about this:
“How then shall they call
on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how
shall they believe him, of whom they have not
heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
And how shall they preach unless they be sent
...?” (Romans 10.14-15)
Ask yourself candidly: do you know more ... or less ...
of your Catholic faith than your children? Very likely
more — although, in all honesty, it is probably little.
You politely assent to the now quaint Catholic notion
that “parents are the primary teachers of their children,”
but knowing little of your own Faith, you simply shell
out $175.00 per child and pan off this grave responsibility
to others of whom you know nothing, and who themselves
largely know nothing of the faith they presume to teach.
You go through the motions as careless of what your
children are taught in their 10 years of “Religious
Education” as your bishop is of what the teachers teach.
10 years later, and $1500 poorer per child, you scratch
your head and wonder why Johnny still does not know
God, and why Judy never goes to Mass — and yet we have
agreed that you know more than your children ...
What, then, we must ask — with growing apprehension
— will your children teach their children
...?
What will they — who know even less than
you
— teach those who know nothing?
Total Ignorance
The momentum, as we see,
is inexorable — until it culminates in total ignorance:
every generation knows less of their faith than the
generation preceding it. It is, in the end, the devolution
from doctrine to legend, from legend to fiction, and
from fiction to myth.
That is not just a poor,
but a stultifying and ultimately deadly patrimony.
This default — at every
level — in transmitting the authentic Catholic faith
intact ... leaves Jesus’
question very suddenly very real.
“Recently,
a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic
attitudes toward Holy Communion.
The poll showed serious confusion
among Catholics about one of the
most basic beliefs of the Church.
Only 30 percent of those surveyed
believe they are actually receiving
the Body and Blood, soul and divinity
of the Lord Jesus Christ under the
appearance of bread and wine.”
The problem is more than mathematical; as we have seen,
it is exponential. 70% of Catholics do not possess this
most fundamental, this most essential understanding
of the core article of genuine Catholic doctrine: that
“Unless you eat of the flesh of
the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you have no life
in you.” Heavy stuff!
It is not just a matter of the greatest concern, but nothing
less than a matter of the gravest dereliction that most
Catholics do not realize — do not know — that the
very Mass itself is an abbreviation of “The Most
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”, and that it is really a
Sacrifice, the actual re-enactment of Calvary
before their very eyes!
This failure of understanding ... culminates in a failure
in Faith. It possesses, in significant ways, the remorseless
characteristics of mathematical certainties. Not understanding,
grasping — having never been taught — the most elementary
features of the faith, how can they be understood to
possess what they have not acquired, and how can they
transmit, pass on, what they do not possess? It is inescapable.
Prognostication, of course, is for fools.
But the words of Christ are certainties that will come
to pass.
“Weep not for Me, but for your children,”
5 Christ
told the sorrowing women on the road to Calvary.
Jesus’ question, then — “When
the Son of Man comes will He find faith on earth?”—
is not a “rhetorical question” at all; it is a question
fraught with enormous significance ... the frightful
answer to which appears to be unfolding before our very
eyes ... but that is if you take Christ at His word
— and given Jesus’ track record on things yet to come,
we would do well and wisely to give pause for more than
thought.
Are you worried now ...? Not nearly enough.
And this is all the more frightening still.
Geoffrey K. Mondello Editor Boston Catholic Journal
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
___________________________________________________________________________
The Holy Catholic Faith
Where is it And Who is Keeping
it?

Has the
Post-Conciliar Church
Lost Custody
of the Faith?
All
indications are that is has
The “Dark Ages” — that disdainful
term for the period in history following the collapse of
the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until the 15th century
(a period correctly described as the Middle Ages)
is understood by the secular world to have lasted
roughly 1000 years, beginning in Florence, Italy.
Within the post-Conciliar
Catholic Church, however, it appears that the term extends
well beyond the 15th century; indeed, some 500
years beyond it! According to contemporary Catholic thought
articulated within the past five papacies, the “Dark Ages”
really ended in 1965 at the conclusion of the Second
Vatican Council. All the doctrines and teachings prior
to that Council were only imperfectly, deficiently, and
insufficiently articulated or defectively understood.
The 1000 Years of Darkness
Only
the Second Vatican Council finally attained to enlightenment
in the divine economy, and after 1,965 years of suspension,
it alone has provided the final, sufficient, and correct
understanding of God and Church, man and nature. Prior to
that, according to post-Conciliar thought, Catholics had
essentially lived in darkness, specifically the darkness
of the “pre-Conciliar Dark Ages.” It may be said that where
the Rational Enlightenment “saved the world from religion,”
Vatican II saved the Church from Catholicism.
Continue reading
___________________________________________________________________________
Martyrology for Today
Semen est sanguis Christianorum (The blood of Christians
is the seed of the Church) Tertullian, Apologeticum,
50
2004 Roman Martyrology by Month
2004 Roman Martyrology

Tuesday, December 232d in the Year of Grace 2025
This Day, the Twenty-third Day of
December
Saint
John of Kęty, priest,
who, having been ordained, fulfilled the office of teaching
for many years in the Academy of Kraków, and then undertook
the pastoral care of the parish of Olkusz. There,
uniting right faith with virtues, he became an example of
piety and charity toward his neighbor for his fellow workers
and disciples, and on the day after this, at Kraków in Poland,
he departed to the joys of heaven.
2. At Gortyna
on the island of Crete, the ten holy martyrs Theodulus,
Saturninus, Euporus, Gelasius, Eunician, Zoticus, Pontius,
Agathopus, Basilides, and Evaristus, who, in the persecution
of the emperor Decius, when ordered to sacrifice at the
dedication of the temple of Fortune, publicly resisted,
suffered torments, and were beheaded.
3. At Rome,
commemoration of Saint Servulus, who, from early
age lying paralyzed in a portico near the church of Saint
Clement, as Saint Gregory the Great writes, strove always
to give thanks to God in his suffering, and whatever he
collected from alms he distributed to the poor.
4. At Chartres in
Gaul, Saint Ivo, bishop, who restored the order of
canons and accomplished and wrote much for the concord of
priesthood and empire and for the welfare of the Church.
5. At Brixen
in the territory of Trent, blessed Hartmann, bishop,
who, formerly a canon regular, prudently, and faithfully
governed that Church.
6. In Iceland,
Saint Thorlac, bishop of Skálholt, who devoted himself
to reforming the morals of clergy and people.
7. At Canterbury
in England, commemoration of Saint John Stone, priest
of the Order of the Hermits of Saint Augustine and martyr,
who, a vigorous champion of the Catholic faith, under King
Henry the Eighth, completed his martyrdom on the gallows.
8. At Valencia
in Spain, blessed Nicholas, surnamed the Factor, priest
of the Order of Friars Minor, who, inflamed with the most
ardent charity of God, was rapt in ecstasies.
9. At Montreal
in Canada, Saint Marie-Marguerite d’Youville, religious,
who, having become a widow and mother of a family, piously
raised two sons to the priesthood and devoted all her strength
to caring for the sick, the elderly, and the afflicted of
every kind, for whom she founded the Congregation of
the Sisters of Charity.
10. At São
Paulo in Brazil, blessed Anthony of Saint Anne Galvão
de França, priest of the Order of Friars Minor, who
devoted himself fruitfully to preaching and the ministry
of penance, and founded the Recolhimento de Luz (“Retreat
of Light”), where he guided the community of Sisters with
the highest spiritual moderation.
11. In the
district of Tjyen-Tiyon in Korea, Saint Joseph Cho Yun-ho,
martyr, who, a young man following in the footsteps
of Saint Peter Cho Hwa-so, his father, was killed by blows
for the name of Christian.
12. In the
district of Valencia in Spain, blessed Paul Meléndez
Gonzalo, martyr, who, a father of a family, while
persecution raged against the faith, cleaving to the footsteps
of Christ, through His grace came to the eternal kingdom.
__________________________________________________________________
And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
Omnes sancti Mártyres, oráte pro nobis. (“All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us,” from the Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany of the Saints)
℟. Thanks be to God.
|
The 1956 edition below, issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, is a revision of the typical edition of 1749, which had been promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV remained the foundational text for later updates throughout the 18th–20th centuries up to 2004 — the English translation of which remained the sole source of the Martyrology until the present translation of the 2004 Roman Martyrology by the Boston Catholic Journal in 2025. |
|
1956 ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

Tuesday, December 23rd in the Year of Grace 2025
This Day, the Twenty-third Day of December
At Rome, the holy virgin Victoria,
a martyr, in the persecution of the emperor Decius.
She had been promised in marriage to a pagan named Eugene,
but because she refused to marry him and to offer sacrifice
to idols, and because by working many miracles, she brought
many virgins to the service of God, she was, at the request
of her betrothed, stabbed in the heart with a sword by the
executioner.
At Nicomedia, the birthday
of twenty holy martyrs, whom
the persecution of Diocletian made martyrs for the faith
of Christ, after subjecting them to the most painful torments.
In the same place, the Saints Migdonius
and Mardonius; one of whom was burned alive in the
same persecution, and the other died in a pit into which
he had been thrown. A deacon of St.
Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, suffered at the same time.
He was arrested by the Gentiles when carrying letters to
the martyrs, and being overwhelmed with stones, went to
our Lord.
In Crete, the holy martyrs Theodulus,
Saturninus, Euporus, Gelasius, Eunician, Zeticus, Cleomenes,
Agathopus, Gelasius, and Evaristus, who were beheaded,
after suffering cruel torments, in the persecution of Decius.
At Rome, blessed Servulus,
of whom St. Gregory writes, that a paralytic from his early
years to the end of his life, he remained lying in a porch
near St. Clement's Church, and being invited by the chant
of angels, he went to enjoy the glory of Paradise. At his
tomb, frequent miracles are wrought by Almighty God.
Omnes sancti
Mártyres, oráte pro nobis.
(“All
ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us,” from the Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany
of the Saints)
Response: Thanks be to God.
|
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1959 Roman Martyrology by Month
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why the Martyrs Matter
Each
day we bring you a
calendar, a list really, of the holy Martyrs who had suffered
and died for Christ, for His Bride the Church, and for our holy
Catholic Faith; men and women for whom — and well they knew
— their Profession of Faith would cost them their lives.
They could have repudiated all three (Christ, Church, and Catholic
Faith) and kept their lives for a short time longer (even the
lapsi * only postponed their death — and
at so great a cost!)
What would motivate men, women, even children and entire families
to willingly undergo the most evil and painfully devised tortures;
to suffer death rather than denial?
Why did they not renounce their Catholic Faith when the first
flame licked at their feet, after the first eye was plucked
out, or after they were “baptized” in mockery by boiling water
or molten lead poured over their heads? Why did they not flee
to offer incense to the pagan gods since such a ritual concession
would be merely perfunctory, having been done, after all, under
duress, exacted by the compulsion of the state? What is a little
burned incense and a few words uttered without conviction, compared
to your own life and the lives of those you love? Surely God
knows that you are merely placating the state with empty gestures
…
Did they love their wives, husbands, children — their mothers,
fathers and friends less than we do? Did they value their own
lives less? Were they less sensitive to pain than we are? In
a word, what did they possess that we do not?
Nothing. They possessed what we ourselves are given in the Sacrament
of Confirmation — but cleaved to it in far greater measure than
we do: Faith and faithfulness; fortitude and valor, uncompromising
belief in the invincible reality of God, of life eternal in
Him for the faithful, of damnation everlasting apart from Him
for the unfaithful; of the ephemerality of this passing world
and all within it, and lives lived in total accord with that
adamant belief.
We are the Martyrs to come! What made them so will make us
so. What they suffered we will suffer. What they died for, we
will die for. If only we will! For most us, life will be
a bloodless martyrdom, a suffering for Christ, for the sake
of Christ, for the sake of the Church in a thousand ways outside
the arena. The road to Heaven is lined on both sides with Crosses,
and upon the Crosses people, people who suffered unknown to
the world, but known to God. Catholics living in partibus
infidelium, under the scourge of Islam. Loveless marriages.
Injustices on all sides. Poverty. Illness. Old age. Dependency.
They are the cruciform! Those whose lives became Crosses because
they would not flee God, the Church, the call to, the
demand for, holiness in the most ordinary things of life made
extraordinary through the grace of God. The Martyrology we celebrate
each day is just a vignette, a small, immeasurably small, sampling
of the martyrdom that has been the lives of countless men and
women whom Christ and the Angels know, but whom the world does
not know.
“Exemplum enim dedi vobis”, Christ
said to His Apostles: “I have given you an example.” And His
Martyrs give one to us — and that is why the Martyrs matter.
-
A Martyr is
one who suffers tortures and a violent death for
the sake of Christ and the Catholic Faith.
-
A Confessor
is one who confesses Christ publicly in times of persecution
and who suffers torture, or severe punishment by secular
authorities as a consequence. It is a title given only
given to those who suffered for the Faith —
but was not killed for it —
and who had persevered in the Faith until the
end.
Geoffrey K. Mondello Editor
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Boston Catholic Journal
Note:
We suggest that you explore our newly edited and revised
“De
SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus — The Torments and Tortures of the
Christian Martyrs”
for an in-depth historical account of the sufferings of the
Martyrs.
____________________________
*
Those early Christians who renounced their Catholic Faith
in times of persecution. When confronted with the prospect
of torture and death if they held fast to their faith in
Christ, they denied Him and their Faith through an act of
sacrificing (often incense) to the pagan Roman gods and
in so doing kept their lives and/or their freedom and property.

Totally
Faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted
to the Holy See in Rome
“Scio
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
“I
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
(Apocalypse 3.8)
Copyright © 2004 - 2025 Boston
Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise
stated, permission is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal
for the copying and distribution of the articles and audio
files under the following conditions: No additions,
deletions, or changes are to be made to the text or audio
files in any way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit.
In the reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic,
text, or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston
Catholic Journal.
|
|