
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 Pope Leo’s Eliminating Latin
as the Definitive Language of the Church
...
will Result in
Irrecoverable Loss
for Catholicism
§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.
“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

Sunday, December 28th in the Year of Grace 2025
This Day, the Twenty-eighth Day of December
Feast of the Holy Innocents, martyrs.
The boys who in Bethlehem of Judah were killed by the impious
king Herod, so that with them the infant Jesus, whom the
Magi had adored, might perish, and who, honored as martyrs
from the earliest ages of the Church, are the first fruits
of all who would pour out their blood for God and the Lamb.
2.
At Alexandria in Egypt, Saint Theonas, bishop, who
was the teacher and predecessor of Saint Peter the martyr.
3. Commemoration of
Saint Antony, monk,
who lived a solitary life and, as an old man, retired to
the monastery of Lérins in Provence, where, kindly and learned,
he died piously.
4.
At Matelica in Picenum of Italy, blessed Mattia de’ Nazarei,
abbess of the Order of Poor Clares.
5.
At Lyon in Gaul, the natal day of Saint Francis de Sales,
bishop of Geneva, whose memory is celebrated on the
day of his death at Annecy, the twenty-fourth of January.
6.
At Rome, Saint Gaspar del Bufalo, priest, who strove
vigorously for the liberty of the Church, and, having been
cast into prison, did not cease to lead sinners back to
the right way, especially through devotion to the Most Precious
Blood of Christ, in whose honor he founded the Congregations
of Missionaries and of Sisters.
7.
At Naples in Italy, blessed Catherine Volpicelli, virgin,
who, continually devoted to the assistance of the poor and
the sick, founded the Institute of the Handmaids of the
Sacred Heart, taking care that Christian charity might
always be expressed by activity adapted to the needs of
the times.
8.
At Kyiv in Ukraine, blessed Gregory Khomysyn, bishop
of Stanislaviv and martyr, who, in time of persecution
against the faith, merited to recline at the banquet of
the heavenly Lamb.
__________________________________________________________________
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

Sunday, December 28th in the Year of Grace 2025
This Day, the Twenty-eighth Day of December
In Bethlehem, of Juda, the birthday of
the Holy Innocents, who
were massacred for Christ by King Herod.
At Ancyra, in Galatia, the holy martyrs
Eutychius, priest, and Domitian, deacon.
In Africa, the birthday of the holy
martyrs Castor, Victor and Rogatian.
At Nicomedia, the holy martyrs Indes,
eunuch, Domna, Agapes and Theophila, virgins, and their
companions, who, after long combats, attained to
the crown of martyrdom by various kinds of death during
the persecution of Diocletian.
At Neocaesarea, in Pontus, St. Troadius,
martyr, in the persecution of Decius. During his
combat St. Gregory Thaumaturgus appeared to him in spirit,
and encouraged him to undergo martyrdom.
At Arabissus, in Lower Armenia, St.
Caesarius, a martyr who suffered under Galerius Maximian.
At Lyons, in France, the birthday of
St. Francis de Sales, bishop
of Geneva, ranked among the saints by Alexander VII, because
of his most ardent zeal for the conversion of heretics.
His festival, by order of the same Pontiff, is kept on the
29th of January, when his sacred body was translated from
Lyons to Annecy. Pius IX confirmed a decree of the Sacred
Congregation of Rites, declaring him Doctor of the universal
Church.
At Rome, St. Domnion, priest.
In Egypt, St. Theodore, monk,
disciple of St. Pachomius.
In the monastery of Lerins, St. Anthony,
a monk renowned for miracles.
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.
|
|