The Lord promised that Hell would not ultimately prevail. But….

Holy Mother Church is indefectible.  The Lord promised that Hell would not ultimately prevail.

He didn’t, however, promise that it wouldn’t prevail quite a lot.

He made no promises about the mighty Church in N. Africa or Asia Minor… or these USA… or Rome.

Take 18 minutes and listen to Damian Thompson’s sobering new podcast.

HERE

I am reminded of an answer I got from a bishop as we were relaxing after a conference where we were both speakers.   I asked him about the state of the Church and, as a follow up, what we had to do to reverse the situation.  His answers, in rapid response…

“TERRIBLE!”

“The first thing we have to do it stop blowing sunshine up everybody’s …..”

 

Posted in The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged
7 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 245

Photo by The Great Roman™

Use your
phone’s camera

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
9 Comments

ASK FATHER: What are the different kinds of exorcism, and why would one be used instead of another?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I’ve heard mention on this site from time to time of various Titles of exorcism.  What are the different kinds of exorcism, and why would one be used instead of another?  Are certain kinds reserved for Popes, Bishops, or Abbots?  Can Deacons exorcise?

Frankly, any Christian might be able to exorcize.  One of the most awesome exorcists of the Medieval period was St. Catherine of Siena.   Also, the Lord dispatched his disciples to preach, to heal and to cast out demons.  They weren’t ordained yet.  And there were, as you remember, those whom the disciples rebuked because, although they were not in their circle, they were casting out demons in Jesus name (Mark 9:38).  The Jews, before the time of Christ, has exorcists (cf. Acts 19:13).  Heck, even handkerchiefs were used to drive out demons (Acts 19:12).  Moreover, among the minor orders conferred on MEN before ordination to the major orders of subdeacon, deacon, and priest (and bishop), there was ordination as an “Exorcist”.    This order went all the way back to at least the 3rd century.

Some people have this gift.  It is not something to be presumed upon, however.

This is serious business, on the one hand.  On the other, it ought to be fairly routine.   Remember that the Devil and demons are the “apes of God”.  They do nothing original.  They are like clowns, in a way.  They are at the same time to be considered with derision and taken quite seriously.  Though they are fallen, they remain angels, and that is not a joke of any sort.   Possession is their hideous way of aping the Incarnation.

The Church gets to regulate how sacraments are celebrated and how sacramentals are used.  Exorcism is a sacramental.   The Church has had for a very long time now carefully crafted Rites of Exorcism.  These have been developed through centuries of experience of what actually works.  Is there only way to perform an exorcism.  No.  However, it is a really good idea to be guided by the Church, the greatest expert on humanity and supernatural questions that there ever has been or ever could be.  To depart from that guidance would be folly.  It could be incredibly dangerous folly.

Let me add here that NO ONE – NO LAY PERSON should start trying to exorcize just because of what I wrote, above. That would be rash and hazardous.

That said, there are certain kinds of “deliverance prayers” and “minor exorcisms” that lay people can pray and they can be effective.  However, just as in the case of the full-blown Rite of Exorcism, the person saying the prayers had better be in the state of grace.  If you start poking at demons and you are in the state of mortal sin, you are asking for serious trouble.  JUST DON’T.

Now, pay attention.  I just wrote “JUST DON’T”.  That said, there is a kind of a self-exorcism, or, better, deliverance prayer, which a lay person can and should recite: Prayers to Break the Freemasonic Curse.  These are to be said by someone who was initiated into Freemasonry or by descendants of Freemasons, adjustments being made for the differences in, for example, British and American Freemasonry.   Freemasonry is evil.  It is of Hell.  Catholics are forbidden to belong to any type of organization with ties to Freemasonry.   It gives demons access and can result it oppression and possession.   Once involved, the ties with Freemasonry have to be renounced and broken, even by descendants, for that reason that parents have authority over their children, who are brought into the Freemasonic influence by their commitments.

There are exorcisms that are reserved.  For example, in the Roman Ritual in the section called Title XI, chapter 2 has the Rite of Exorcism of a person.  This is reserved to bishops (successors of the Apostles) and to those priests to whom the bishop delegates his authority.  The diocesan bishop is, after all, the THE exorcist in his diocese.  Were a priest to use XI,2 without the bishop’s mandate, the exorcism could be effective, but without question it would be more authoritative with the bishop’s mandate.  In effect, that mandate is so important, that priests shouldn’t try to exorcize without it.  Perhaps if there were a serious case of necessity, that might be an exception.  For example, if a group were stranded on an island with a priest and someone was possessed, the priest (who no doubt would have his copy of the Ritual with him) could go ahead.   But that priest had better make as perfect an Act of Contrition as possible, because exorcism in the state of mortal sin is potentially hazardous.  Even if the priest would succeed, that demon would want someone else to latch onto.  As a matter of fact, exorcists will tell you that everyone involved in an exorcism should be in the state of grace through confession and sacramental absolution.  Otherwise… bad.

As a matter of fact, the rubric at the beginning of XI.2 says, in Latin: “The priest delegated by the Ordinary, properly confessed, or at least in his heart detesting his sins, once the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is finished, if that was practical to accomplish, and once divine help was begged by means of pious prayers, dressed in surplice and a violet stole, and having the obsessed person bound up before him, if there is danger…”.

The fact is that there is danger of physical harm in some exorcisms.  Sometimes people have to be restrained.   The demon has control of the energumen’s, the possessed person’s body and demons don’t like exorcists or those who help them.

An important take away in this is that, while GOD is the one who truly exorcizes, the personal state of the priest is important.  This is a sacramental, not a sacrament.  An unholy priest in the state of mortal sin, even a priest who is actually possessed, validly absolves and validly consecrates the Eucharist.  But a priest who is not living a holy life is, during an exorcism, going to have a really bad time with the demon, who knows what his problems are, and is also open to getting to be that demons next playground.

According to the Church’s present practice, the delegation to exorcise using XI.2 cannot be given to a deacon.

That’s for XI.2.  Then there is XI.3.

Title XI, Chapter 3 is an exorcism of a place or thing, not a person.   It contains the longer St. Michael Prayer.  It is my strong conviction that lay people should not use this prayer, even though it is included in the vernacular in some devotional books and traditional hand missals.  For example, I think that the fine Angelus Press hand missal has it.  The Rituale says that it can be used by bishops and by priests who have authority “ab Ordinario“… which is usually the diocesan bishop, although there are different kinds of “ordinaries”.  For example, a Vicar General is an Ordinary.  I’ve consulted with various expert exorcists and have come to understand that XI.3 can be used privately by priests, but if they are going to do something public, they have to have the authority from the Ordinary.  That certainly adds punch to it, because demons are the ultimate legalists.   So, Father could, were he to suspect that there was something nasty over in the church hall or perhaps the school … or the rectory… say XI.3 without anyone else around and then bless the place and see what the effect is.   But if, for example, some satanic loon busted up a statue of the Blessed Virgin outside the church, and left obvious signs and maybe even fortunas (cursed objects intended to cause possession) and if Father wanted to have a more public “cleansing” of the damage, he should either get the bishops (who is the true exorcist) or get his mandate to use XI.3 publicly.

BTW… the longer St. Michael Prayer, from Leo XIII, contains language that deals not just with demons, but also with their human cooperators and agents, which meant especially in Leo’s time, Freemasons.   Popes through history have clearly, resoundingly condemned Freemasonry, not only for its spiritual dangers but also for its mundane, secular work to undermine the Catholic Church for its deeper, Satanic aims.

To sum up, the Church regulates who can pray the major exorcisms.  Common sense and experience suggest that, if you are not a priest, you had better not dabble in this stuff, even the minor exorcisms, especially if you have the slightest doubt about being in the state of grace.  That said, there is a charism from God for casting out demons, and He can give it to whom it pleaseth Him to give it.  It should not be presumed.  It would have to manifest itself somehow, for example a possessed person reacting harshly to the presence of the person who has it, as they would to the presents of Holy Water, relics, etc.  Don’t go around trying to exorcize people to see if you’ve got it.  You would not only look foolish, you would authentically be foolish.

Finally, just to be clear.  Lay people, for the most part, leave all this stuff to priests.  Ask priests for their blessing.  If there is something manifesting itself in your life or in your house, get a sound, level-headed tradition-minded priest involved.  Go ahead and use sacramentals, properly blessed.  And remember that sacraments are more powerful than sacramentals.  If you GO TO CONFESSION! that will do more than your average half-grasped deliverance prayer.

And may I remind everyone that the mightiest verbal prayer of all, the prayer Our Lord taught us and told us to pray, contains… “libera nos a malo… deliver us from evil”!  If you think about is, that’s an exorcism prayer.

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
5 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 244

Photo by The Great Roman™

click

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
3 Comments

¡Hagan lío! Invitation to Bishops and Priests to Fast, Recite Leo XIII’s Exorcism Prayer on Vigil of the Assumption

I was sent this.  It seems like a good thing to do (pace certain prelates).


INVITATION
TO BISHOPS AND PRIESTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD
TO A DAY OF FASTING
AND THE RECITATION OF THE EXORCISM OF LEO XIII
ON THE VIGIL OF
THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY INTO HEAVEN

In this moment of very serious spiritual and material crisis, in which the public Authorities support the plans of the New World Order and the Shepherds are silent accomplices in the face of the destruction of society and of the Church of Christ herself, it is our sacred duty to unite ourselves to the spiritual battle, aligning ourselves without hesitation under the banners of Christ our King and Mary our Queen.

The Lord has given to Bishops and Priests the power to cast out demons in His Name. Already on Holy Saturday of 2020 many of them welcomed my appeal with generosity and a supernatural spirit. Today I intend to renew this appeal. I ask, therefore, my venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and Priesthood to dedicate the Vigil of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to prayer and fasting, and to reciting the Exorcismus in Satanam et angelos apostaticos of Leo XIII (Rituale Romanum, Tit. XII, Caput III) [NB: Title XI, not XII], at the hour of 12 noon in Rome. [EDT – 0600] This sacramental will be placed under the mantle of the most fearful Adversary of the infernal powers, so that the choral prayer of the Ministers of God will remove from the Church and the world the snares of the Enemy of mankind which today threaten society, families, individuals, and in a particular way the faithful of Christ.

The secularized world, and along with it not a few Shepherds, will be able to mock this appeal and the Exorcism itself, considering it the legacy of a past to be cancelled along with the Faith of our fathers. But we know well that, although we are unworthy sinners, a power has been given to us by Our Lord which terrorizes the Gates of Hell and its servants.

In the silence and fasting which prepares us for the Feast of the Assumption of the Queen of Heaven, let us invoke the Most Holy Virgin, terrible as an army set in battle array [Cant. 6:9], and Saint Michael the Archangel, the Patron of the Holy Church and Prince of the Heavenly Hosts.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

12 August 2021
Sanctae Clarae Virginis


Speaking of being cancelled…

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, ACTION ITEM!, Be The Maquis, Cri de Coeur, Priests and Priesthood, Save The Liturgy - Save The World | Tagged , ,
2 Comments

Fr. Murray on bishops, ‘c’atholic pro-abortion politicians (=Democrats), and Eucharistic coherence

CLICK ME

My friend Fr. Gerald Murray has a good piece at, surprisingly, the UK’s once great Catholic Herald. HERE He tackles the problem of catholic Democrat politicians who promote abortion while claiming to be faithful members of the Church.   Rightly, Fr. Murray says that the bishops, who theoretically might some day write a document about “Eucharistic coherence”, need to instruct these pro-abortion politicians for their own sake and for the sake of correcting the scandal they cause.

A couple of tastes….

They [73% of US who voted in favor of a document on Eucharistic coherence] have also given a clear sign that a sizeable majority of the bishops was not swayed by the claim that discussing the application of canonical norms (canons 915 and 916) in the case of pro-abortion elected officials is somehow a “politicisation” or “weaponisation” of the Holy Eucharist.

What can we say about the 27% other than that they may be perhaps to thick to get the problem or that they are quislings in bed – for whatever advantage there might be – with the politicians who promote the murder of the pre-born?

More…

Slam-word alarmist slogans, wielded as verbal hammer blows, do not have any real meaning, which is precisely what slogans are for: to act as substitutes for thought, designed to end any further discussion. The reasons for denying Holy Communion to Catholic elected officials, including President Joe Biden, who promote abortion are: firstly, to rebuke them and to call them to recognise their error, repent and retract. Secondly, to remind other Catholics that supporting abortion is seriously wrong and must be rejected if one is to be faithful to Christ. Thirdly, to proclaim to everyone that abortion is not a healthcare choice, but rather a barbaric practice that is offensive to God and is incompatible with any standard of human rights and justice in a civilised society.

Excellent.

Then Fr. Murray calls out the 60 catholic House Dems who wrote the incoherent, shameless, scandalous, intelligence-insulting letter to the Bishops.

You can see that on your own.  However, here are a couple more snips…

Our bishops should note that there is no need for further investigation and dialogue as the witnesses have come forward and volunteered their testimony.

The endless cant about dialogue with these people must end.

For sure, they [bishops who act correctly about pro-abortion pols re: can. 915, etc.] will be criticised by people who see the Catholic bishops as just another group of political players trying to sway voters.

The problem is that in the last few decades the bishops have collectively squandered virtually every scrap of moral capital that was ever attributed to them, merited or not.

We shall what they actually DO.  Deeds, not words, are all that count now.

I’m not holding my breath.

Meanwhile, having dealt with our own consciences, we need to pray for those politicians.  Even more we need to pray for our bishops… that they be bishops, who are not weak-kneed and who cave in under the slightest left-wing pressure.

 

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
4 Comments

Bishops’ differing approaches to Traditionis custodes

The heat and fallout from the nuke that fell on the anniversary of  the detonation of the first atomic bomb, a date chosen perhaps to add insult to injury by the fact that it was the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, are beginning to clear.

A few tradition despising (can one conclude otherwise?) bishops rushed immediately to issue harsh edicts in the wake of the confused and confusing Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes (the Church’s Plessy v. Ferguson following Benedict XVI’s Emancipation Proclamation), generally viewed by good canonists to be, at best, a mess.   Most bishops, in these USA at least, having a touch more prudence and maybe a little less disdain of the people in their charge, said that they had to “study” the Motu Proprio, and in the meantime everyone should carry on as before.

Now it seems that they have had their private chats and are coordinating a bit.

Some, however, are going in other directions.  The letters they send out make interesting reading.

One of the better reactions from a US bishop I have seen is from the Bishop of Syracuse, Most Rev. Douglas Lucia.  He established one of their churches as a “diocesan shrine”, and hence a place of pilgrimage, prayer, etc.  He will go there HIMSELF to inaugurate the Shrine with a Pontifical Mass in the Usus Antiquior (we should start to move away from “Extraordinary Form” language).   He appointed a “delegate” for the “Latin Mass community” who is also a pastor of a parish.    The 9AM (sweet spot) Mass will be in the Usus Antiquior, the Vetus Ordo, and the noon Mass in the Novus Ordo.  He says it remains a personal parish and all who are registered there can receive all the sacraments with the 1962 books.  People can request funerals in the Novus Ordo, but he writes: “Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation may not be celebrated in the Ordinary Form at St. Mary’s without permission of the Diocesan Ordinary”, which sort of puts the shoe on the other thing.

He then lists the four churches where the Usus Antiquior will be used, though he could have been more generous.  He makes use of Can. 87, by the way.  Good choice.

On the other hand there is this nonsense from the Diocese of Gaylord.   Granted, this is not from Bishop Hurley but rather from the Communications Director (a group who collectively have usually left me less than impressed).

This is an official communiqué from the diocesan comms commisar published in a parish bulletin about the fact that, on 11 July, there was a TLM celebrated in a “closed” church, St. Charles which had been part of that parish cluster.  It seems that diocese closed and then sold the church some time ago.  It was acquired eventually by the SSPX!  They’ve got it up and running again and the diocesan personnel are verklempt.  They bemoan the fact that the SSPX didn’t seek their permission to do this.  They lament that the priest wasn’t authorized.  They say that Catholics should avoid going there, because the group at St Charles is “not reconciled with Rome”.  They identify that nefarious group as “the Fraternity of St. Peter”.

For DUMB.

Another example of how people who have NO IDEA of what they judging are making the judgments.

Also, when you close and sell a church, you don’t get to control it any more.  Perhaps the better strategy would be to keep the church and think outside of the box.

Moving west, we find the less than edifying efforts to implement TC in the Diocese of Boise.

Bishop Peter Christenson expresses his long-time concern about the “divisiveness” in the diocese coming from the people who want the Traditional Mass:

My brother priests, these are not new concerns for me. I have also been troubled by a divisive energy rising from those who seek to “restore” the Church to the Tridentine Liturgy. Efforts I have made to provide the Extraordinary Form for those who wish it have often been met by greater demands and an expressed intention to attend churches that are in schism with the Catholic Church, such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), rather than attending a Novus Ordo Mass.

Firstly, we are simply to accept, I guess, that there is “divisive energy”.  Going on, we are to accept that he has made “efforts” to provide for these “divisive energy” people.  What I find really interesting is his statement that his “efforts” were met with a desire to seek out the SSPX, rather than attend a “Novus Ordo” Mass.

Let’s leave aside that the SSPX is NOT is schism.  Their priests have been given faculties by the Holy See and by various diocesan bishops. You can’t receive faculties if you are in schism.  And I would ask for the name and date of the document that formally judges the SSPX to be schismatic.  If they have been officially, formally judged to be schismatic, there must be some formal official declaration.

I ask you… if you tell people who want the Traditional Mass that they can go to the Novus Ordo, is that really making an “effort”?

I have an image in my mind right now of a child on Christmas Eve wishing only that his daddy would come home so they could put the star on the tree, like daddy promised.  After all, it is the family tradition.  “Grandpa, would lift me up on his shoulders and I would put the star on the tree.  It was wonderful.  I’ll never forget it as long as I live.”   But, daddy doesn’t come home at all because he has some important work to do that takes effort.  The neighbor, at the house for the Christmas party, sees how sad the boy is and offers to take him for a walk in the fresh cold Boise air.  It just so happens that he has been putting up his Christmas decorations (not before Christmas Eve, of course) and has yet to put the star on the little pine tree in his front yard.  He hoists the boy up and they put it on together.  It is something that the boy will never forget, for the rest of his life.

Has Bp. Christenson ever gone to be with these people and celebrate, himself, Holy Mass in the Traditional Form?  Has he spent time with them?  It may be that he has.   It could be that he has made special efforts to celebrate Mass, to confirm their children.  And, dagnabit!, those people were so ungrateful that they emit “divisive energy”.  “No matter how I bend over backward for these people, they just keep wanting what they want!”

This is the single most marginalized group of people in the Church.  This is the periphery if ever there was one.

But no.  He made “efforts” and is sad that they don’t want to attend the Novus Ordo.

My experience is that when bishops show up for something Traditional, when bishops really opens up their hearts towards them, people are incredibly grateful.  They would go to the wall for such a bishop.

But no.  THEY are the ones who are at fault.

Another little point… in the letter Bp. Christensen sent to the priests of Boise there are decrees.  He with great effort established ONE parish for the TLM. He also says… think about this…

With this in mind, in accordance with Traditionis Custodes and Canon 381, 1, I decree that, effective immediately:

• It is determined that the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, in situ at St. Joan of Arc Parish in Coeur d’Alene, do not deny the validity and legitimacy of the liturgical reform as dictated by Vatican Council II and therefore may continue to use the 1962 Roman Missal in that parish solely;

Oooo…. he threw a little Latin in there.  In situ!  He could have just said, “the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at St. John of Arc”.  “In situ at” is sort of like seeing “Shrimp Scampi” on an “authentic” Italian restaurant menu.

Think about that for a moment.   This is about the FSSP, the Fraternity of St. Peter.  This is like saying, “It is possible that Joe Bagofdonuts is a wife beater.  As a matter of fact, it could be that he beats his wife.  I’ll make efforts to investigate.   Okay everybody, I’ve determined that Mr. Bagofdonuts does not, in fact, beat his wife as was previously suspected.”

There is something more than disturbing in that.  One might say that it is insulting.

The Motu Proprio Plessy v. Ferguson … oooops… Traditionis custodes.   

Si vis pacem para bellum!

Posted in Si vis pacem para bellum!, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, Traditionis custodes | Tagged , , ,
16 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 243

Photo by The Great Roman™

click

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
1 Comment

URGENT PRAYER REQUEST – for Card. Burke

UPDATE:

Or…. which seems not to be accurate.


Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
19 Comments

It might be the real Holy Grail

On this Feast of St. Lawrence this seems appropriate.

The Holy Grail might be in Valencia, Spain.

There is an interesting book by Janice Bennett entitled St. Laurence and the Holy Grail: the story of the Holy Chalice of Valencia (Ignatius, 2004) which argues that the 1st century cup of agate, now mounted on a medieval base of gold and precious stones is the cup that Jesus used at the Last Supper for the consecration of His Most Precious Blood, “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

For many, not for all… in the sense that not all will accept the gift.

Please understand that this book has big holes, uneven writing and research, and is open to serious skepticism on some aspects.  However, it also relates truly fascinating information about this amazing relic held in Valencia and gives the reader a glimpse into the story of St. Lawrence and translations of various manuscripts of interest.  Take this with a grain of salt, but it is a great read.

The cup itself is of a kind of agate, like chalcedony or sardonyx.  It is like other cups found in Egypt, Syria and Palestine at the time of Christ.  In the British Museum there are stone cups of the same style as that in Valencia dating to A.D. 1-50.  It is of an odd color, reddish, “like a live coal”, and it is hard to say exactly what the stone is.  The ancient naturalist Pliny describes that stone cups were submerged in oil until the stone absorbed some, and then boiled in acid which modified the organic material and changed the colors of the veins in the stone.  The cup was very finely and accurately crafted and lacks ornament other than a fine band around the lip.  It was broken in the middle on 3 April 1744, Good Friday, when it was dropped. I’ll bet that guy was reassigned! The break was repaired and only a tiny chip is missing.  The cup can hold about 10 ounces.

You are asking, “But Father!  But Father! How can anyone claim that this cup in Valencia came from the hands of Jesus in Jerusalem?”

The cup has an interesting story, traced by Bennett in her book.  Here is the super brief version.

Some scholars argue that Christ used two different cups at the Last Supper, one of metal and the other of agate, the latter used for the first consecration.  Some argue that the Upper Room used for the Last Supper belonged to the family of John Mark.  There is some confusion about the different “John”s and “Mark”s in the New Testament.  Suffice to say that it is possible that Mark the Evangelist was the son of the women who was a prominent member of the first Christians in Jerusalem.  Peter went to her house when he was released from prison. That house was a meeting-place for the brethren, “many” of whom were praying for Peter when he was in prison: (Acts 12:12-17).  This is possible the same place where the Last Supper took place, which establishes a connection with Mark and with Peter.  It is argued that Mark gave Peter the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper for the consecration of his Precious Blood.  This would be the second cup Jesus handled that night.

St. Peter consequently took the cup with his to Rome, where the Prince of the Apostles used it for Holy Mass until his martyrdom under the Emperor Nero.  Thus, this cup became a precious object within the Christian community in Rome.

Sixtus II ordaining Lawrence to the exclusively all male diaconate

Bennett relates the argument that the presence of and even use of this cup in the ancient Roman Church is proposed as a possible reason why in the Latin Rite our consecration formula speaks of “hunc praeclarum calicemthis precious chalice” whereas the non Latin rites refer to the Greek “to poterion… the cup”.  Interestingly, in the New Testament the word used is poterion, “cup”, and in Latin it is calix.  However, in Spanish the word caliz (in Italian calice) is used to distinguish this important vessel for Mass from a simple cup, or copa (Italian coppa).  “Cup” is simply not worthy of the moment and the purpose.  Where do the words involved here come from? A Greek kylix was ceramic and had a wide base, was shallow, and had handles parallel to the table along the wide open lip.  This style also came to be made from precious metals.  The Romans called this cup a calyx.  The word “grail” probably derives from old Spanish gral, grail for a drinking vessel, perhaps coming from Latin gradale or grasale a wide dish.  In Provençal, the language of many of the troubadors who spread the grail legends, we have grazal.

During the time of the Emperor Valerian there was a terrible persecution of Christians.  In A.D. 258 Pope Sixtus II was commanded to turn over the goods of the Church and, when he refused, was killed.  Sixtus, however, had entrusted to his deacon the goods of the Church for their administration.  This deacon was the famous St. Lawrence, a Spaniard from Huesca.  When the Emperor went after Lawrence and commanded that the goods of the Church be rendered up.  Lawrence asked for three days to get everything together.  But instead of giving it to the officials he gave everything away and then produced a group of poor people, saying “These are the true treasures of the Church”.  For that Lawrence was beaten and tortured horribly, even to being fried alive on an iron grate.  For his part, however, Lawrence had already given the precious stone cup to another Spaniard named Precelius, who took it to Spain.  The iron grid of Lawrence’s martydom is preserved in a Roman Church just a few minutes from where I am writing, in San Lorenzo in Lucina though he was martyred where there now stands San Lorenzo in Panisperna and buried at San Lorenzo fuori le mura, a Minor Patriarchal Basilica.

Lawrence is obviously the patron saint of cooks as well as several other groups. [cooks!]

Perceval

This is where the history firms up a bit.  Various manuscripts indicated that the stone cup was kept in several places.   By 533 it was in the Cathedral of Huesca, which was built in that year.  Huesca was where St. Lawrence was from and perhaps where the Spaniard Precelius took it.  After the 711 invasion by the Moslems it was hidden in the Pyrenees in various caves.  After Charlemagne’s journey to the area in 777, the location of the cup, which was hidden, roused up many of the “grail legends” that come down to us in many forms today.  In 830 the cup is at the Monastery of San Pedro de Siresa.  In 1071 it was taken to the monastery of San Juan de la Peña.  In 1190 Cretien de Troyes wrote a 9324 line poem Perceval about the “Holy Grail”.  In 1209 Wolfram von Eschenbach wrote Parcival, based on Spanish legends, which centuries later inspired Richard Wagner’s opera.  In 1322 a Sultan sells a gold cup from Jerusalem, which he claims is the cup of the Last Supper, to Jaime II, King of Valencia and Aragon.  This is perhaps the cup which is converted to become the base for the ancient stone cup. In 1399 the stone cup was given to King Martin the Humane and taken to Barcelona.  King Alfonso V of Aragon sends the cup to Valencia.  In 1744, the cup is broken, repaired and fixed to its base.  In 1936, to save it from the Marxists, a woman named Maria Sabina Suey smuggled the cup out of the Cathedral wrapped in newspaper.  She hid it in various places to keep it from desecration and destruction.  The cup returns to the Cathedral of Valencia in 1939 with the end of the war where it remains to this day.

Even if this is not the very cup Jesus used at the Last Supper, and it might well be, it is hard to dismiss that this is the cup that inspired all the Holy Grail legends which branch into the stories of the Knights of the Round Table, an Indian Jones movie, and another recent piece of rubbish not worth our time to name.

The ancient stone cup, on its golden medieval base, is now in a beautiful chapel in Valencia.  When Pope John Paul II visited Valencia on 8 November 1982, he kissed the cup (better than kissing a Koran) and then used it to celebrate Holy Mass.

It might have been the first time, 1724 after Pope Sixtus II, that “Peter” had held the cup again.

Pope Benedict used it for Mass in Valencia.

It could really be it, after all.

 

Posted in Just Too Cool, Linking Back | Tagged ,
15 Comments