WDTPRS: 14th Sunday after Pentecost

Today’s prayer survived the snipping and pasting of the Consilium and the late Rev. Annibale Bugnini’s liturgical experts to be used on Tuesday of the 2nd week of Lent.


Custodi, Domine, quaesumus,
Ecclesiam tuam propitiatione perpetua:
et quia sine te labitur humana mortalitas;
tuis semper auxiliis et abstrahatur a noxiis,
et ad salutaria dirigatur.

Propitiatio, in its fundamental meaning, is “an appeasing, atonement,  propitiation”.  The dictionary of liturgical Latin Blaise/Dumas also gives us a view of the word as “favor”.  This makes sense.  God has been appeased and rendered favorable again towards us sinners by the propitiatory actions Christ fulfilled on the Cross.  We have renewed these through the centuries in Holy Mass.

Mortalitas refers, as you might guess, to the fact that we die, our mortality.  Inherent in the word is the concept that we die in our flesh.  So, you ought also to hear “flesh” when you hear mortalitas

Labitur is from labor.  This is not the substantive labor but the verb, labor, lapsus.  It means, “to glide, fall, to move gently along a smooth surface, to fall, slide”.

Auxilium, in the plural, has a military overtone.  There is also a medical undertone too, “an antidote, remedy, in the most extended sense of the word”.  Pair this up with noxius, a, um, which points at things which are injurious or harmful.  There is a moral element as well or “a fault, offence, trespass”.

Salutaria is the plural of neuter salutare which looks like an infinitive but isn’t.  Our constant companion the Lewis & Short Dictionary says the neuter substantive salutare is “salvation, deliverance, health” in later Latin.  The adjectival form, salutaris, is “of or belonging to well-being, healthful, wholesome”.  Think of English “salutary” and O salutaris hostia in the Eucharistic hymn by St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274). 

When this word is in the neuter plural (salutaria) there is a phrase in Latin bibere salutaria alicui … to drink one’s health” or literally “to drink healths to someone”.  In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet during the famous “Queen Mab” speech Mercutio declares that a soldier dreams, inter alia, of “healths five fathom deep,” (I, iv) and in Henry VIII  the King says to Cardinal Wolsey, “I have half a dozen healths to drink to these” (I, iv).

Wine and health are closely related in the ancient world. In the parable of the Good Samaritan the good passerby pours oil and wine into the wounds of the man who was assaulted (Luke 10:25-37). St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy: “No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim 5:23). 

Apart from its resemblance to blood, it is no surprise that Christ should choose this healthful daily staple as the matter of our saving Sacrament. 

Wine was often safer to drink than water in the ancient world, though it was nearly always mixed with water to some extent. To drink uncut wine, merum in Latin (from the adjective merus “unadulterated”, giving us the English word “mere”) was considered barbaric. Cicero (+43 BC) and others hurled that accusation at Marcus Antonius (+31 BC) who was a renowned merum swiller.

Catholics sing the word merum in the hymn of the Holy Thursday liturgy, Pange lingua gloriosi, by St. Thomas Aquinas: “fitque sanguis Christi merum… and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ”. In sacramental terms, there is a link between wine and health in the sense of salvation. During Holy Mass, we offer gifts of wine with water to become our spiritual “healths” once it is changed into the Blood of Christ. These archaic and literary references help us drill into the language of our prayers.

Let’s drill some more.  Did you know that the index finger was called digitus salutaris, and that the ancient Romans held it up when greeting people? We don’t do that very often these days.  I believe modern usage, at least on roadways, more commonly employs a different finger. The special designations of fingers in Latin are pollex (thumb); index or salutaris (forefinger); medius, infamis or impudicus (middle finger); minimo proximus or medicinalis (ring finger); minimus (little finger, “pinky”).  The priest, during Mass, always held the consecrated Host only between his thumb and the digitus salutaris.  One way to harm a priest, our mediator at the altar and in the confessional, was to chop off his index fingers.  Priests were forbidden to say Mass without special permission from the Holy See and those fingers were clearly understood by those who hate the Church, priesthood, and the Eucharist as being especially important. 

Let’s push this a little more. 

The adjective medicinalis, “medicinal, healing”, comes from the verb medeor or medico, the original meaning of which has to do with “to heal” by magic. The verb traces back to the stem med– or “middle”.  So, medicus, “doctor” is associated with “mediator”.  We can think of this in terms of the English word “medium”, who is a mediator with the spirit world.  The Latin poet Silius Italicus (Tiberius Catius Asconius Silius Italicus +101) called magicians medicum vulgus (Punica, III, 300). The ancients saw what we call the “ring finger” as having magical powers.  This is reflected in the name digitus medicinalis, the “medicinal/magic” finger.

One of the most important Patristic Christological images in the ancient Church is Christus Medicus, the “Physician”. St. Augustine does amazing things with this image, and Christus Mediator.  He is the doctor of the ailing soul.  He is the only mediator between God and man.   

Guard your Church, we beseech You, O Lord,
with perpetual favor,
and since without You our mortal flesh slides toward ruin
by means of your helping remedies let it be pulled back from injuries
and be guided unto saving healths.

We all know the image of the slippery slope.  Once you are on this slope, scrabble and scratch as you can, you can’t get a purchase. 

You slide and slide, faster and faster. 


Our fallen nature and our habitual sins drag us onto the slope from which we cannot save ourselves.  In the sacraments and teachings of Holy Church, Christ extends the fingers of His saving hand. 

He draws us back from a deadly slide.

Watch how the old incarnation of ICEL ruined the imagery in the lame-duck version we still hear in our churches today.

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord, watch over your Church,
and guide it with your unfailing love.
Protect us from what could harm us
and lead us to what will save us.
Help us always, for without you we are bound to fail.

There are different ways to do this, but I wanted to place in evidence the image of health and the flesh and medicine.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in WDTPRS. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. quovadis7 says:

    Exceptionally erudite effort, Fr. Z!

    I VERY much appreciate how you unpack and unveil the theological treasures of our traditional Catholic prayers.

    So sadly and so often, Msgr. Bugnini, the Concilum, and the ICEL either gutted them outright, shuffled them off to a quite obscure location (as in the case of this particular prayer – moving it from a Sunday in the EF to a Tuesday during Lent in the OF – don’t try to convince me that there wasn’t an agenda at work in making that decision!), or relegated them to the attic where they were “safely” out of the way.

    Several things that I see consistently with the lame duck ICEL prayers (my short list):

    1) they almost never use the phrase “we beseech You…” – kinda reminds me of a child who asks for something without proper manners,

    2) they don’t readily convey how desperately we need God’s grace to reach our heavenly goal (i.e. some assert that the OF prayers tend toward a semi-Pelagian view of our relationship with God – i.e. that we look at His grace in terms of getting a spiritual fill-up, instead of looking at His help as being the very spiritual air that we need to breathe) and

    3) they consistently under-emphasize the grave dangers that each of us will be facing during our spiritual journey – in this particular Collect prayer, the ICEL translates them only as if they “could” harm us.

    Want an “apples-to-apples” comparison of the OF & EF prayers (even translating directly from the Latin for both, rather than relying on ICEL)? Check out the following article by Dr. Lauren Pristas, where she compares their Collect prayers from each of the Sundays during Advent (starting at page 24):


    Efforts like yours, Fr. Z, and Dr. Pristas’ (she even has a new book coming out “soon”!) often make me wonder – sometimes, even out loud – “What in the world were the Concilium and the ICEL thinking???”

    Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

    Steve B
    Plano, TX

  2. RichR says:


    I agree with your list of observations. I’d add, as a corollary to #2, that “The greatest sin is that we don’t realize our own dignity.” While I agree that we are all called to holiness, that holiness is a product of the infusion of Divine Grace, not something that is intrinsic to human nature. People are holy insofar as they cooperate with Grace. If they live in sin, they have checked their “dignity” at the door and have embraced hedonism. The goal, at that point, should be to call people out of their sin – not to tell them that they are living out a dignified life that is simply going unrecognized.

    I think this is the number one reason why I gave up on the revised Office and embraced the 1963 Monastic Diurnal – the prayers remind me of this “desperate need of God’s Grace” you mentioned above. All too often, when I prayed the ICEL Collects in the LOH I was left with a dulled sense of spiritual urgency.

  3. Guard your Church, we beseech You, O Lord, with perpetual favor, and since without You our mortal flesh slides toward ruin, by means of your helping remedies let it be pulled back from injuries and be guided unto saving healths.

    Does this not throw God’s mercy into sharper focus? What do we do with things that are constantly sliding toward ruin? We get rid of them. But He constantly pulls us back. (Or at least He is willing to do so, if we ask.)

  4. uptoncp says:

    I believe modern usage, at least on roadways, more commonly employs a different finger.

    Do the terms infamis and impudicus indicate a similar usage among the ancient Romans?

  5. PDJennings says:

    >The ancients saw what we call the “ring finger” as having magical powers. This is reflected in the name digitus medicinalis, the “medicinal/magic” finger.

    This reminded me that I have always wondered about the unusual hand gestures that occur in some icons and religious paintings. Often the thumb is opposed to the ring finger. Can someone please relieve my ignorance about the significance of that?

  6. Can someone please relieve my ignorance about the significance of that?

    Most of the time, I think this has to do with the position of the fingers to indicate the two natures of Christ and three Persons of God.

Comments are closed.