by Bro. Thomas
In this little paper I would like to deal primarily with Holy Scripture.
The theological arguments for Our Lady Co-Redemptrix from Tradition
and the Magisterium have been more than adequately handled by Dr.
Mark Miravalle in his excellent Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix,
Advocate, 1 and the marvelous The Mother of Our Saviour and
Our Interior Life, by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. 2
The reason that liberals like René Laurentin et alia have
been so successful in blocking attempts to define the doctrine of
Mary Co-Redemptrix, is because they have first suppressed the correct
reading of Genesis 3:15. Here is the correct reading from the Douay-Rheims,
which is a faithful translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate:
will put enmities between thee and the woman,and thy seed and her
seed:she shall crush thy head,and thou shalt lie in wait for her
Notice how clearly it comes across that it is Our Lady who will
crush the head of the serpent, thus redeeming man from his power.
Our Lord the Redeemer is hidden, and it is almost as if it was just
the Redemptrix alone. This has always been a shocker to Protestants.
Here is an incorrect reading from their Revised Standard Version:
I will put enmity between you and the woman,and between your
seed and her seed;He shall bruise your head,and you shall bruise
And now it is a shocker to today's Protestantized Catholics. Here
is the Confraternity's watered down version:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike
at his heel.
So a first step, I think, in promoting the doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix,
is to show that the Douay-Rheims is the correct reading. I have
done two studies of this text, one which I called The Woman of
Genesis in which I used the Hebrew and Greek script, and another
in an unpublished book entitled Adam and Eve (a sequel to
my The Six Days of Creation), in which I give the Hebrew
and Greek in italicized Roman script. I think this latter version
would be more appropriate for a paper such as this, so let me do
a little cutting and pasting, and a lot of editing:
"In this chapter I would just like to concentrate on the pronoun
of our passage: " ? shall crush."
In Hebrew hu is "he," and he "she," which is a little
confusing to say the least. There is no "it" in Hebrew, both hu
and he can be translated "it" depending on the context.
In Greek "he" is autos, "she" aute, and "it" auto.
In Latin "he" is ipse, "she" ipsa, and "it" ipsum.
"Then in the next chapter I will go on to the verbs "crush" and
"lie in wait for." I am deliberately taking my time with this passage,
because with Isaias 7:14: "Behold a Virgin," it marks the high point
of the Old Testament...Cornelius à Lapide in his great Commentaria
in Scripturam Sacrum says that the underlying mystery is even
reflected in the Hebrew grammar.
"Also hu is often used instead of he especially when
there is some emphasis on action and something manly is predicated
of the woman, as is the case here with the crushing of the serpent's
head...It makes no difference that the verb is masculine yasuph,
that is "(he) shall crush," for it often happens in Hebrew that
the masculine is used instead of the feminine and vice versa, especially
when there is an underlying reason or mystery, as I have just said."
"The "underlying mystery" is, of course, that Our Lady crushes the
head of the serpent by the power of Our Lord.
"In Hebrew there were originally no vowels, just consonants; so
there had to be oral tradition to know how a word was pronounced.
This incidentally is an excellent argument against the Protestant
(and also the Modernist) principle of sola Scriptura, "Scripture
alone." There are two sources of revelation, Scripture and Tradition.
In the particular case of Genesis 3:15, we could not even read the
passage without an explicit oral tradition; therefore, revelation
had to extend both to the written word of God, Scripture, and the
unwritten word of God, Tradition. Yet even when we are able to read
the written word of God properly, we still do not know what it means,
especially in a difficult passage like the one under consideration.
"Thinkest thou that thou understandeth what thou readest?...How
can I, unless some man show me?" (Acts 8:30,31) We need Tradition,
the teachings of the Fathers, and the Magisterium of the Church
to understand what the Bible truly means.
"Around 600 A.D., a group of Jewish scholars, the Massoretes, tried
to fix the oral tradition of Hebrew by inventing an arbitrary system
of vowels now called
Massoretic points," or simply "points." Depending on where you placed
the point, the same consonants could mean "he" or "she." The personal
pronoun in Hebrew is spelled (in Hebrew letters) he, waw, aleph.
If you put the point in the middle of the waw, it means
"he", if you put it under the he, it means "she." Needless
to say these points are not inspired, but have rather been the source
of innumerable errors in the present day Massoretic Hebrew text.
Here is St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, in his famous
De Controversiis commenting on this problem:
"Such errors do not compromise the integrity required by Holy Scripture
in matters of faith and morals. For the most part, the differences
in the various readings lie in the divergence of languages, while
little or nothing has changed in the meaning. But the errors which
have resulted from the addition of the [Massoretic] points in no
way compromise the truth, for they have been added from without,
nor do they change the text. So we can remove the points and read
"St. Robert is saying that nothing forbids us to change the current
points to make the Hebrew conform to the Latin Vulgate's ipsa, "she,"
since the Vulgate is the only text declared authentic by the Church.
Another Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, is
even more emphatic on this point in his The Divine Office:
"Actual Inferiority of the Hebrew Text
"There is no doubt that the Hebrew text, being the original text,
deserves, when considered by itself, to be preferred to all the
versions; but the learned generally agree in saying that the original
Hebrew is no longer perfectly exact. Indeed, Salmeron, Moririus,
and others, teach that the Jews have altered it out of hatred for
Christianity; many, with Bellarmine, think that many errors crept
in through ignorance, or by the negligence of copyists. It should
especially be remarked that after the fifth century, the Jewish
doctors called Massoretes have added to the Hebrew text signs never
before seen, that is points, which have taken the place of vowels,
and that became the occasion of numerous equivocations and discordant
"Superiority and Authenticity of the Vulgate
"The Council of Trent, therefore, did not wish to do for the Hebrew
text what it did for the Latin text of the Vulgate: for the latter
it declared authentic by presenting it as exempt from all error,
at least in what concerns the faith and moral precepts. Hence in
his dissertation on the transmission of the Holy Scriptures, Xavier
Matthei concludes that, there being given no-matter-what Hebrew
passage or text, and the Vulgate not agreeing with it, one should
keep the Vulgate. 'Not,' he adds, 'that this version is more authentic
than the Hebrew text, but because it may be believed , on the one
hand, that the passage in question is no longer to be found in the
Hebrew as it was there primitively; on the other hand, that this
primitive text is found exactly reproduced in the Vulgate - the
only version that has merited to be approved by the Church." 5
"...the Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived around 40 A.D., argued
from the Hebrew poetic technique known as parallelism, that the
reading should be "she." Genesis, since it is an historical book,
is written in prose; but whenever a prophecy is uttered, as is the
case here, Moses turns to poetry. In the technique of parallelism,
the idea in one line parallels the idea of the following line; as,
for instance, in Our Lady's Magnificat:
My soul doth magnify the Lord
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Lk 1:46,47).
"You can see that the ideas in the first line or stich, "soul"
and "Lord," complement the ideas "spirit" and "God" of the second
line. In some cases, two lines, a distich or couplet, parallel
a following couplet, as is the case in Genesis 3:15.
A I shall put enmities between thee
and the woman,
B and between thy seed and her
A She shall crush thy head,
B and thou shalt lie in wait for her
"In this case line 1A goes with line 2A, and line 1B corresponds
to line 2B. Therefore the "woman" of line 1A corresponds with the
"she" of line 2A. To make the subject of line 2A "he" or "it," and
to say that it relates to the "seed" of line 1B, is bad Hebrew poetry
according to Philo. In other words Philo is saying that the Revised
Standard Version is bad Hebrew poetry, but the Vulgate is good Hebrew
poetry. The Revised Standard Version is a faithful translation of
the Massoretic text as we have it today, but the Massoretic text
of today is a corrupted text.
"Cornelius à Lapide says that another early Jewish witness to the
"she" reading is the historian Josephus, who died around 101 A.D..
"Whence also Josephus (Book 1, Chap. 3) reads it this way as our
translator writes. For he says: 'He ordained that the woman should
inflict wounds on his head' from which it is evident that Josephus
in his day read aute , that is to say, "she." 6
"Josephus and Philo wrote in Greek, but knew Hebrew, so their testimony
witnesses to the fact that both the Septuagint and the Hebrew of
their day read "she." Lapide gives an even later Jewish witness,
later even than the Massoretes, the Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides,
who died around 1204. Of course, Maimonides did not believe in the
Messianic or Mariological content of our prophecy, thinking that
the woman of the context was merely Eve, but he obviously believed
that the text read "she":
"Moses Maimonides writes, which is indeed amazing, 'But what must
be admired most of all, is that the serpent is joined with Eve,
that is, its seed with her seed, its head with her heel; that she
(Eve) should conquer it (the serpent) in the head, and that it should
conquer her in the heel (More Nebochim, Part II, chap. 30)."
"So evidently in Maimonides day there were still some uncorrupted
Hebrew texts available. À Lapide adds that even in his day there
were two Hebrew codices in the Vatican library that read "she" (according
to Kennicott numbers 227 and 239), and another in the Bernard de
Rossi library. Also in the same library was an Onkelosi Codex [translation
from the Hebrew into Aramaic] which read "she." 8
"Let us now examine the Greek translation of the Old Testament known
as the Septuagint. The Septuagint which dates from around 250 B.C.,
has always had a special place in the history of the Bible, and
is never put on the same level as any other translation, such as
the Douay-Rheims. The New Testament was inspired and written in
Greek, but all its quotations from the Old Testament are from the
"Origin, an early Father of the Church, is probably the first textual
critic, and one of the greatest. In 255 A.D. he completed his famous
Hexapla, a Greek word meaning "six columns," in which he
tried to recover the original text of the Septuagint. At the Jewish
Council of Jamnia held in the year 100 A.D., it was decided to render
a new Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament because there
was concern about Christian apologists who were converting Jews
by pointing out the Messianic prophecies in the Septuagint. These
prophecies seem to come through more clearly in Greek even than
"Accordingly, three new Greek translations were eventually brought
out by the Jewish scholars Aquila, Symachus, and Theodotion. Thus
by Origin's time, there were four Greek versions in circulation.
Origin arranged these versions in six columns: in the first column,
the current Hebrew; in the second, the Hebrew text in Greek letters;
in the third, the version of Aquila; in the fourth, that of Symmachus,
the fifth the Septuagint with Origin's emendations, and finally
sixth, that of Theodotion.
"As if that wasn't complicated enough, three other anonymous translations
of the Septuagint were discovered in Origin's day which became known
as the Quinta, Sexta and Septima: the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh.
Two of these versions were actually discovered by Origin himself,
one of them in a jar near Jericho, seventeen centuries before the
Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered near the very same area. The Hexapla
remained in the library at Caesarea in Palestine, where it was consulted
by St. Jerome when he was working on the Vulgate. Unfortunately,
this great work was lost when the library was destroyed by fire
during the sack of Caesarea by the Moslems in 653.
"However fragments of the Hexapla survived in the writings
of the Fathers, and the great Benedictine biblical scholar, Bernard
de Montfaucon published a two volume edition of these fragments
in 1713. For our passage he gives the reading: autos, "he,
but adds: Allos aute, "in another place - she": Montfaucon
"...So some manuscripts: and this appears to have been the reading
of some old translator, whose name we know not, and whom the translator
of the Vulgate follows." 9
"Another great Benedictine Scripture scholar, Dom Rembert Sorg,
says that Montfaucon is referring to the anonymous Quinta Sixta
and Septima, which St. Jerome must have followed. However, most
of the Greek Fathers read autos, "he" for our passage, with
the exception of St. Ephraim who wrote in Syriac, and who reads
"she." But, as I have noted earlier, this reading does not change
the theological sense of our passage. It only becomes a bad reading
if it is used to deny the Mariological sense, as do the Protestants
and the Modernists. All the Greek Fathers appreciated the Mariological
content of this prophecy. Let me read just one of the earliest,
St. Justin Martyr, who died around 165 A.D. (St. John, the beloved
disciple, died in 100 A.D., so you can see how close we are to the
Apostolic Tradition), in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
"We understand that He [Christ] became man by means of the Virgin,
so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed
just as it began. Eve, a virgin, having conceived the word of the
serpent, gave birth to disobedience and death. Mary on the other
hand, conceiving faith and joy, when the Angel Gabriel announced
to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power
of the Most High would overshadow her so that the Holy One born
of her would be called the Son of God, answered: 'Be it done unto
me according to thy word.' He is then born of her, He of whom the
Scriptures so often speak. By her, God destroyed the empire of the
serpent and of all the angels and men who became like to the serpent,
and frees from death those who repent of their faults and believe
in Him." 10
"In this chapter I would like to go through the two verbs in our
text, "crush" and "lie in wait for," in the Douay Rheims, which
is a faithful translation of the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. Let
us examine these verbs in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in that order.
"If you recall, Father Vawter [Fr. Bruce Vawter, C.M. is the spokesman
I use for Biblical Modernism] claimed that with regard to the Hebrew
text, "the same verb shuph is used in each case, and hence
the translation should be the same, namely
"bruise," "bruise." But this is not necessarily true. The same verb
can have quite different meanings in any language, including Hebrew.
For example, I have just opened a dictionary at random, and I find:
1. comprehensive - as in a
2. without delay - as in
"Therefore, let us look up the Hebrew word shuph in a recognized
Hebrew lexicon -Koehler-Baumgartner, 1967 edition:
1.A by form of sha'aph (see Brown,
Driver, and Briggs); "to trample upon,
crush"; Akkadian cognate shapu,
"to trample under foot"; Syriac,"to
rub, wear out, bruise.
2. Arabic cognate, shapa, "to
see, look at, watch."
"Thus we see that there are two distinct meanings for the verb shuph;
and also that shuph 1. is derived from an older verb sha'aph,
which means "to trample upon." This means we are dealing with two
distinct but similar Hebrew roots, a situation employed in a Hebrew
poetic technique known as paronomasia, or word play. Word
play is also used in English poetry, or in any language where words
have several layers of meaning. So a Hebrew would be aware of a
double-meaning play on words as he read our passage: the woman is
lying in wait to crush the serpent, while the serpent is lying in
wait to be crushed. Now, the amazing thing about this particular
paronomasia is that it comes across even in Greek, where the word
for "crush" is teiro, and the word for "lie in wait for is
tereo, which are so similar. This gives us some idea why
St. Augustine considered the Septuagint at least protectively inspired.
Unfortunately the word play does not come across in Latin, where
the word for "crush" is conteret and the word for "lie in
wait for" insidiaberis; nor, of course, does it transpose
"The edition of the Septuagint I am using (Samuel Bagster and Sons
of London) has in the text (autos) teresei, "(he) will lie
in wait for," and tereseis "you will lie in wait for." Then
in a footnote is the alternate reading: teiresei " (he) will
crush" and teireseis "you will crush." You can see how close
the two versions are, and how easy it would have been for a copyist
to have made a mistake.
"And now to the Latin of St. Jerome. I can picture St. Jerome with
the Hebrew text before him, wondering how to translate the two verbs
yashuphka and tashuphnu. Unlike Father Vawter, I am
sure that St. Jerome knew that shuph could mean either "crush"
or "lie in wait for." He could also have had before him the two
alternate readings of the Septuagint, teresei -tereseis,
"lie in wait for" -"lie in wait for," and teiresei -teireseis,
"crush" - "crush." So I can imagine him arranging the verbs into
a diagram, to contrast the various possibilities in order to see
which combination made the most sense. There are only four possibilities:
1. She will lie in wait for - you will lie in wait for
"This was Father Vawter's suggested translation of the Septuagint.
"he will watch for your head, and you will watch for his heel."
This makes no sense in the context of a curse upon the serpent.
There is no victory, not even a struggle; the serpent and the woman
simply watch one another interminably.
2. She will crush - you will crush
"This is the same as the Revised Standard Version, "He will bruise
your head, and you will bruise his heel." There is no victory here,
only a struggle, which seems to end in a draw. Again this makes
little sense in the context of a curse upon the serpent, and an
announcement of a continuous war between the serpent and the woman,
and the promise of a future total victory for the woman. To promise
the serpent even a partial victory seems inappropriate.
3. She will lie in wait for - you will crush
"Of course, this is absolutely untenable; the victory would go to
4. She will crush - you will lie in wait for
"I am sure that St. Jerome decided this was the only possibility
that made any sense in the given context. What comes through is
St. Jerome's powerful image of the crushing foot of the woman, and
the serpent's terror-stricken view of her heel. "The devils also
believe and tremble" (Jas 2:19)."That St. Jerome went through some
kind of a trial and error process such as this seems also to be
the opinion of Lapide. Notice that Fr. à Lapide, unlike Fr. Vawter,
also knows that shuph can have two meanings:
"The word shuph which occurs twice in this declaration, has
been rendered in many ways by interpreters. One can, however, quickly
reduce them all to the two most important: one is contere,
"to crush" or "trample under foot,"...and the other latenter
observare, "to watch from hiding," or insidias struere, "to
set up snares." The translator of the Vulgate, as though undecided
between the two, first took the word in one of these meanings, then
the other. However, this translation is by far the most suitable
for the whole passage." 11
"We have the great advantage over Origin, in having an official
version of the Bible, the Vulgate. If I had his genius and erudition,
I would like to do, not an Hexapla (six columns), but a Treisapla
(three columns): in the first column, the Latin Vulgate of St.
Jerome, in the second column the Greek Septuagint, and the third
column the Hebrew. We could go through the whole Old Testament,
and recover the original versions of both the Greek and the Hebrew,
by comparing them with the Latin. Of course, it wouldn't be just
automatic. Doubtless minor errors, not of faith or morals, have
crept into the Vulgate. It might be possible to correct these from
the Greek and Hebrew, especially if they are both in agreement.
But if that is too huge a project, I am sure we have at least recovered,
the original Greek and Hebrew reading of Genesis 3:15.
She Ipsa will crush conteret thy head,and you will
lie in wait for insidiaberis her heel.
She Aute will crush teiresei thy head,and you will
lie in wait for tereseis her heel.
She He will crush yashuphka thy head and you will
lie in wait for tashuphnu her heel.
This concludes my citations from my unpublished Adam and Eve,
and hopefully we have restored the correct reading of Genesis
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed
and her seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in
wait for her heel.
This beautiful prophecy was fulfilled in John 19:25-27:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his
mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. When Jesus
therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he
loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that,
he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour,
the disciple took her to his own.
St. John stands for the Church, and Our Lady is the Mother of
the Church. St. John is not just Our Lady's son in a moral or
metaphorical manner. He had received the Body and Blood or Our
Lord the night before at the Last Supper. So he is physically
and literally her son, of the same Body and Blood which she gave
to Our Lord, truly another Christ. But Our Lady is also the Mother
of All Men, and St. John stands for all men. There is no such
thing as a natural man. All men are born fallen in Adam, and redeemed
in Christ. Mary is the Mother of Grace, including the grace of
the Redemption. That grace comes from Jesus, from His Cross, through
Mary as a channel, to all men. Our Lady suffered no birth pangs
at the birth of Our Lord, for He came from her body like light
through a window. But in becoming the Mother of All Men she suffered
terrible travail which is told in the Apocalypse:
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the
sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve
stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and
was in pain to be delivered (12:1,2).
We can now see the meaning of Genesis 3:15: She shall crush thy
head. Mary redeems all men and the Church from the power of Satan.
This Redemption begins with Christ the Redeemer and His Cross,
and passes through Mary to the Church. Of course Our Lady is not
the mother of unbelievers in the same way she is of Catholics.
This is brought out clearly in another beautiful tableau from
the Gospel of St. John:
But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was
already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers
with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood
and water. And he that saw it hath given testimony; and his testimony
is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also might
believe. For these things were done, that the scripture might
be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him. And again
another scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they
This is another beautiful symbolic account of the birth of the
Church. All the Fathers see a parallel between God the Father
taking from the side of the sleeping Adam, his virginal bride,
Eve. So the Church, symbolized by the blood and water of its principal
sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, is born from the side of
the dead Christ. This thrust of the soldier's spear through Our
Lord's heart cost Our Lady terrible agony which was prophesied
by Simeon in the Gospel of St. Luke: And thy own soul a sword
shall pierce, that out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed
(2:35). "Thoughts may be revealed": What do you think of Jesus
Christ? What do you think of His Mother? What do you think of
This tableau is most like Genesis 3:15 where Mary crushes the
serpent's head all alone. Jesus is dead, and it is Mary all alone
whose sufferings symbolically bring forth the Church from her
pierced Immaculate Heart. We could just as easily call Mary simply
"Redemptrix," as Co-Redemptrix. St. Louis Marie De Montfort says,
you can name a thing by the goal, Jesus, or by the way, Mary,
by the end, or by the means. But he adds" "Since we live in an
age of pride when a great number of haughty scholars, with proud
and critical minds, find fault even with long-established and
sound devotions," it is best to stay with the customary "Co-Redemptrix."
I think that once the correct reading of Genesis 3:15 is restored,
the doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix will be seen to be eminently
1 Miravalle, Mark I., S.T.D., Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix,
Advocate, Queenship Publishing,, PO Box 42028, Santa Barbara,
2 Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Reginald, The Mother of the Saviour
and Our Interior Life, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO,
1959; cf. Article III "The Sufferings of Mary as Co-Redemptrix,"
3 À Lapide, Cornelius, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram,
Larousse, Paris, 1848, p.105.
4 Bellarmine, St. Robert, De Controversiis, Book II, Chap.
2, Bellgate, Milan, 1721, p.74.
5 De Liguori, St. Alphonsus Maria
The Divine Office, Benzinger Brothers, New York, 1890,
6 À Lapide, p.105.
7 À Lapide, p.105.
8 À Lapide, p.105.
9 Montfaucon, Vol. I, p.18; cited in Quigley, Richard, Ipse,
Ipsa, Ipsum, Which? Fr. Pustet and Co., New York, 1890, p.338.
10 Justin Martyr, St, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter
100; cited in Donlon, Thomas C., O.P. and Cunningham, Francis
L. B., O.P., Rock, Augustine, O.P., Christ in His Sacraments,
The Priory Press, Dubuque, IA, 1958, p.272.
11 À Lapide, p.106.
12 Montfort, St. Louis Marie, True Devotion to Mary, in God
Alone, Montfort Publications, Bayshore, NY, 1997, p.367.
13 I have deliberately kept this little paper Scriptural rather
than theological, but lest even my friends misunderstand me, I
thought it best to add a theological note from the Franciscan
Fr. J.B. Carol. Father Carol is saying the same thing as I am
only in careful theological language:
"When we, therefore, say that Christ alone redeemed us, we are
referring to His primary, universal, infinite, and self-sufficient
causality in the redemptive process. We do not mean it in a sense
that would exclude Mary's secondary, finite, and totally subordinated
share which drew all its efficacy from the merits of her Son.
While Mary did not (could not) enhance the value of Christ's redemptive
merits and satisfactions, God was pleased to accept her share
therein together with (but subordinated to ) Christ's sacrificial
action and for the same purpose, namely, the redemption of the
human race. Only in this restricted sense can we say that Mary
'redeemed the human race together with Christ,' as Pope Benedict
XV boldly stated.
J.B. Carol, O.F.M., " Co-Redemptrix," Dictionary of Mary,
Catholic Book Publishing Co., NY, 1985, pp.57,58.
This article is included in Mary at the Foot of the Cross
- II, Acts of the International Symposium on Marian Coredemption
held at Ratclife College in England. Published by the Franciscan
Friars of the Immaculate in New Bedford, Massachusetts.