The power of the Miraculous Medal

‘Is it possible that our enemies should display such activity and gain superior strength, while we remain idle, without getting down to work? Do we not have even stronger weapons, namely the protec¬tion of heaven and of the Immaculate Virgin?’ Saint Maximilian Kolbe We read in the following article: Maximilian Kolbe and the Miraculous Medal | Militia Immaculatae Maximilian Kolbe and the Miraculous Medal (Excerpt of the book “The Immaculate, our ideal”) As an outward sign of membership in the [Militia Immaculatæ), the Knight of the Immaculata wears her Miraculous Medal. We human beings are not only spirit, but also body. Our interior life, our ideal and mentality must be perceptible from outside, must be expressed in our external life. Therefore outward signs are necessary in order to bring the interior disposition to light. The Savior willed to grant His graces to people pre¬cisely through such “sacred signs”, namely the Sacraments. In a similar manner the Knight of the Immaculata must also make an outward pro¬fession. The Miraculous Medal is the outward sign of the interior Total Consecration to the Immaculata. Furthermore, as a weapon in the battle for souls he distributes these medals wherever he can. The Miraculous Medal should be the weapon, the bullet, which the Knight of the Immaculata makes use of. Even if someone is as wicked as can be, if he agrees to wear the Miraculous Medal, give it to him and pray for him, and occasionally try with a kind word to bring him to the point where he begins to love the Mother of God and to fly to her in all his difficulties and temptations. But anyone who sincerely begins to pray to the Immaculata will soon be con¬vinced to go to Confession as well. There is much evil in the world, yet let us consider that the Immaculata is even more powerful: “She will crush the head of the infernal serpent.” Isn’t such a practice somewhat exaggerated? How is it that the founder of the M.I. places so much trust in such an external thing? We should reply, first, that the very origin of the M.I. is closely related to a great miracle that was worked through the Miraculous Medal, namely the conversion of a Jewish man, Alphonse de Ratisbonne. In the year in which the M.I. was founded (1917), the seventy-fifth anniversary of this great miracle was being celebrated in Rome. Young Brother Maximil¬ian had already asked himself the question long before that: Is it possible that our enemies should display such activity and gain superior strength, while we remain idle, without getting down to work? Do we not have even stronger weapons, namely the protec¬tion of heaven and of the Immaculate Virgin? He found out the answer on that memorable twentieth of January, when the superior of the house presented to them the story of the impenitent Jew’s conversion as a theme for meditation. In that medita¬tion, as Father Pal, his friend and co-founder of the M.I. attests, the Saint received the inspiration to found a knighthood in honor of the Immaculata, which chose the Miraculous Medal as its emblem and shield for the future Knights. From that day on, Brother Maximilian often visited the church of Sant’Andrea delle Fratte in order to pray before the altar where Alphonse de Ratisbonne had converted. He also chose that altar as the one upon which he would offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the first time after his priestly ordination. Furthermore Fr. Maximilian often used to tell his friars about truly extraordinary incidents that he himself had experienced with the Mirac¬ulous Medal. For example, one time while he was recuperating in Zako¬pane he tried to convert a young Freethinker who proudly called him¬self “the Heretic”. All arguments were in vain. Nevertheless, out of courtesy he accept¬ed the Miraculous Medal. Immediately afterwards I suggested that he make a confession. “I am not prepared. By no means,” was his reply. But … at that very moment he fell on his knees, as though impelled by a higher power. The confession began; the young man wept like a child. The Immaculata had won. …. \Naturally, the cause of this miraculous change in a human heart was not the medal itself as a physical object, but rather the Immaculata, who attaches her special graces to the wearing of the Miraculous Medal. And there were many, many such incidents in the life of St. Maximilian. Therefore: Distribute her Medal, wherever there is an opportunity: to chil¬dren, so that they will always wear it around their necks; to the elderly and the youth, so that they, under her protection, might have enough strength to resist the temptations and falls that par¬ticularly beset them in our times. And also to those who do not go to Church, or who are afraid to go to Confession, who make fun of religious practices, who laugh at the truths of the faith, who are mired in a moral swamp or are living outside the Church in heresy – to all of these people you absolutely must offer the Medal of the Immaculata and ask them to wear it, but then fervently beg the Immaculata also for their conversion. Many people make use of another expedient when someone is reluctant to accept the Miracu¬lous Medal. They just sew it secretly into his or her clothing and pray for that person, and sooner or later the Immaculata will show what she is capable of. The Miraculous Medal is the ammunition of the M.I.

Who built Rome’s Pantheon, Marcus Agrippa or Hadrian?

by Damien F. Mackey “My investigation thus allows us to reclaim Hadrian’s planning and agency for at least part of this iconic building, and to discern more clearly his prominence, and perhaps even his personality, in the imperial capital city”. Mary T. Boatwright Introduction Conventionally considered, I believe that it is quite impossible for historians to arrive at a fully accurate answer to this question regarding the celebrated Pantheon. The received text book history and chronology just will not allow it. The conventional scholarship, as typified here by Mary T. Boatwright, would have Marcus Agrippa, whose inscription appears boldly inscribed on the Pantheon, dying around 12 BC, whilst the emperor Hadrian is thought to have come to power more than a century later, in around 117 AD. The best that could be said, from a commonsense point of view, is that Marcus Agrippa clearly built the Pantheon, while the emperor Hadrian may later have embellished and/or refurbished, it. The Pantheon could not have been a Hadrianic era building! My New History for Hadrian and Marcus Agrippa The revised history and chronology of these times that I have developed, however, can accommodate Agrippan and Hadrianic involvement in the Pantheon at the same time. This is because I have multi-identified both the emperor Hadrian and Marcus Agrippa in ways that are totally unconventional. Their era is the Infancy of Jesus Christ. The emperor Hadrian, a Seleucid king, was (among others) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Augustus, who decreed a universal Census when Jesus Christ was born (Luke 2:1): Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Marcus Agrippa, the Right-Hand Man Of Caesar Augustus (Lindsay Powell), was, variously Herod ‘the Great’ (also for Augustus); Philip the Phrygian (for Antiochus); and Herodes Atticus (for Hadrian). On this, see e.g. my article: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (7) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man So, just as King Herod (Marcus Agrippa) ‘the Great’ built on an enormous scale on behalf of the emperor Augustus Caesar, so, too, did he do the same for Hadrian as an alter ego of this Augustus. Disentangling convention Having laid this new and revolutionary foundation, we can now bring more light to bear on what Mary T. Boatwright has written at the beginning of her 2013 article: Hadrian and the Agrippa Inscription of the Pantheon (7) Hadrian and the Agrippa Inscription of the Pantheon Introduction Recent work has reignited debate about the authorship and meaning of the Pantheon, a now-iconic building whose convoluted testimony and unusual design have always complicated its understanding. …. Although the Pantheon is frequently considered to be Hadrian’s most famous construction and a key to his character and politics … it was long attributed to Marcus Agrippa because the inscription on its facade names this colleague of Augustus as patron: M. Agrippa L. f. co(n)s(ul) tertium fecit (CIL VI 896 [1]: … ‘Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, consul three times, made [this]’ …. Only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did scholars begin to agree that the structure was Hadrianic. Their deduction, based on brickstamps, excavation and literary evidence, seemed conirmed by Herbert Bloch’s more thorough analysis of Roman brickstamps in the 1930s, which dated to AD 118 or 119 the initial construction of the present Pantheon. …. Doubts about the Pantheon’s design and architect lingered … however, as Mark Wilson Jones explores elsewhere in this volume, as have questions about the relationship of the present building to the Agrippan and Domitianic predecessors known for its site. …. The newest challenge to the Pantheon’s Hadrianic date came in 2007, when Lise Hetland republished the Pantheon’s brickstamps. Arguing that the vast majority are Trajanic and only one clearly Hadrianic, she concluded that Trajan initiated the present building shortly after ad 110 (when lightning destroyed Domitian’s restored Pantheon), and substantially completed it before his death in AD 117. Damien Mackey’s comment: This adds an apparent further complication: TRAJAN. Once again my system can resolve this, for Trajan also was Hadrian: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (2) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian Mary T. Boatwright continues: …. If she is correct, Hadrian was responsible mostly, or merely, for completing another’s project. …. This conclusion has radical implications, including for the interpretation of Hadrian and his relationship to the city of Rome. Although I do not contest Hetland’s Trajanic dating for the Pantheon’s inception, and I leave to Wilson Jones discussion of the Pantheon’s design (and architects), I argue in this paper that the Pantheon still provides insight into Hadrian and the topography of Rome. My focus is the Pantheon’s famous Agrippa inscription. Its placement on the Pantheon’s pronaos makes it among the finishing touches of the building, and it must reflect Hadrian in some way. But the inscription does not name Hadrian. This is usually taken to confirm a notice in the Historia Augusta, that Hadrian restored the Pantheon and various other buildings and consecrated them with the names of their original builders (HA Hadrian 19.10). …. The literary evidence, however, deserves closer study. Furthermore, comparison of other building and rebuilding inscriptions in Rome, including the rebuilding inscription of Septimius Severus and Caracalla on the Pantheon, underscores the uniqueness of the Agrippa inscription’s huge bronze lettering, and argues for Hadrian’s responsibility. The cos. tertium wording of the inscription can also substantiate Hadrian’s authorship. My investigation thus allows us to reclaim Hadrian’s planning and agency for at least part of this iconic building, and to discern more clearly his prominence, and perhaps even his personality, in the imperial capital city. …. [End of quote] For more architectural anomalies pertaining to this period, see my articles: Emperor Hadrian’s palaces missing (8) Emperor Hadrian's palaces missing Did Hadrian or Herod build the Wailing Wall? Did Hadrian or Herod build the Wailing Wall? Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa Caligula exalts Marcus Agrippa

Emperor Hadrian’s palaces missing

“Stratigraphy confirms that Hadrian did not visit a destroyed Jerusalem, but one that had long since been restored”. Gunnar Heinsohn This article can be a companion piece to articles of mine (Damien Mackey) such as: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing Professor Gunnar Heinsohn wrote: Jerusalems_First_Millennium_AD_1000_year.pdf …. Jerusalem is obsessed with Hadrianic temples that are said to have been demolished to make way for other structures. On the Cardo Maximus this act is said to have been carried out in favor of Christianity, while on the Temple Mount it was done in favor of Islam. However, under the Jesus Compound on the Cardo, the foundations of an imperial temple of Venus have not been found. On Temple Mount, a Jupiter sanctuary is said to have been built over the ruins of the Herodian temple. The Umayyads supposedly demolished it to build the Dome of the Rock over it. Traces of this temple of Hadrian are missing as well. Nevertheless, the latest research on Roman Jerusalem claims, without hard evidence, the existence of such a structure: “A Temple to Jupiter on top of the temenos, as implied by Cassius Dio, cannot, in my opinion, be ruled out” (Weksler-Bdolah 2014, 58). Cassius Dio (ca. 165-235 AD) lived nearly a century after Hadrian. He provides the only source: “At Jerusalem he [Hadrian] founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter” (Historia Romana, LXIX, 12:1). However, the original of this source is lost. The passage is a paraphrase by John Xiphilinus (late 11th c. AD), a Byzantine historian and the nephew of Patriarch John VIII of Constantinople. He may have tailored this paraphrase to present an imperial blasphemy as a convincing cause of war. He painted the customary act of establishing pagan shrines in a new Roman colonia “in the harsh colors of a religious confrontation by using a ‘loaded’ verb and referring to the temple by a name familiar to both Jewish and Christian readers” (Eliav 1997, 142). Of course, this must remain speculation. Perhaps the term Capitolina in the new city name also led to associations with Jupiter. In Rome stood the most important of all Jupiter temples in the entire empire, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, on Mons Capitolinus (Capitoline Hill). There was also a contemporary of Hadrian, Appian of Alexandria (95-165 AD), with statements about Jerusalem. He did not know anything about Hadrian rebuilding a destroyed city and even putting a temple of Jupiter on its most holy site. Yet, he reminded his readers of Jerusalem’s destruction in the time of Vespasian and Titus to then add that “Hadrian did the same in our time” (Stern 1980; no. 143). This makes good sense if Hadrian’s war against the Bar Kokhba rebels (132-136 AD) resulted in damages to the city. Stratigraphy confirms that Hadrian did not visit a destroyed Jerusalem, but one that had long since been restored. There are also no better candidates than Arab Nabataeans with their Umayyad culture for repairing the city after AD 70. And unlike the Jupiter Temple of John Xiphilinus, the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount is indisputable. …. [End of quote] There are so many problems to be sorted out here. Let us take just a few of these. While the real Hadrian, who was the Seleucid tyrant, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, at the time of the Maccabees: Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian (3) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian did not come to a destroyed Jerusalem as he would have, had he really lived in c. 130 AD, he certainly invaded and despoiled that City near to the Nativity of Jesus Christ. What is wrongly called the Temple Mount is actually where the invading Gentile forces took up their residence. Cassius Dio, a non contemporary of Hadrian’s, is a most unreliable historian – for this period, at least. Appian, had he known of what Vespasian and Titus had done to Jerusalem, could not possibly, therefore, have been a contemporary of the much earlier Hadrian. Hadrian’s war belonged to the Maccabean era, decades before 70 AD. To find traces of Hadrian’s architecture in Jerusalem, one would need to revisit the Seleucid era, and the buildings of Hadrian’s right-hand man, Herod the Great, who was the same potentate as the great builder, Marcus Agrippa: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (3) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man