Saint Luke - Chapter 24
From The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by J-J Tissot (1897)
"It would be difficult", says Renan, "to add one word to this account, one of the most refined and delicately shaded in any language." Saint Luke, the painter and psychologist, can be easily recognized in it, and nearly all the details of the narrative are given by him alone. Saint Mark merely makes a general statement of the fact: "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed theyy them."
 |
| The Disciples on the road to Emmaus. J-J Tissot |
And behold, two of them went, the same day, to a town which was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, named Emmaus.
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, &c. These two are generally considered to be the same as those mentioned by S. Mark 16:12, but Euthymius is of a different opinion, and argues that the Apostles believed these (see verse 34), whereas S. Mark, 16:13, expressly states that those spoken of by him, “went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.” But I answer that most of them believed, although some, as Thomas, doubted.
You ask, who were these two? I answer, one was Cleopas, but that it is uncertain about the other. S. Ambrose thinks he was called Amaon, because he was a native of Emmaus. Origen calls him Simeon. S. Epiphanius considers him to be the Nathanael mentioned by S. John 1:45. Very many again think that it was S. Luke himself, but it seems from the introduction to this Gospel that S. Luke had never seen Christ in the flesh, and that he was converted after the death of the Lord.
Two of them, i.e. of the disciples, went probably on some matter of business, and also for the purpose of diverting their thoughts from the sad subject of their Master’s passion.
Threescore furlongs, στάδιους i.e., 125 paces, the eighth part of a Roman mile.
Some say that this Emmaus, after the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, was enlarged and called Nicopolis, of which Sozomen writes, “Before the village, where the roads meet, when Christ made as though He would have gone further, is a healing spring, in which not only men, but also animals suffering from manifold diseases, seek relief. For they say that Christ came thither with the disciples, and washed His feet therein, from which time its waters have possessed healing power.” He adds something similar about a tree near Hermopolis, the leaves, fruit, and bark of which cure many diseases, because it bent in adoration as Christ passed on his flight into Egypt.
Many are of opinion that there were two places known by the name of Emmaus, one, the city afterwards called Nicopolis, about 140 stadia from Jerusalem, the other the village mentioned in the text.
[14] Et ipsi loquebantur ad invicem de his omnibus quae acciderant.
And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
And they talked together of all these things which had happened, i.e. they were talking of the sufferings, the death, and the burial of their Master, grieving that so great a prophet had suffered so unworthily, and sorrowing because they would see Him no more; for they evidently despaired of his resurrection and of the redemption of Israel.
[15] Et factum est, dum fabularentur, et secum quaererent : et ipse Jesus appropinquans ibat cum illis :
And it came to pass, that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also drawing near, went with them.
And it came to pass, &c. Jesus teaches here that He is present with those who speak concerning Him. Let us then speak of Jesus, and He will be present with us also, and take part in our communings: not indeed now in bodily form, but spiritually, by the grace of His Holy Spirit, by which He inspires our hearts. For this much He Himself has promised, saying, “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them,” S. Matt. 18:20. They therefore that speak of good have Jesus in their midst. They who speak of evil, Satan. Of this there can be no doubt.
[16] oculi autem illorum tenebantur ne eum agnoscerent.
But their eyes were held, that they should not know him.
But their eyes were holden. You will ask, How was this effected?
1. Dionysius the Carthusian replies, and S. Augustine (lib. xxii. chap. 9 De Civit.) favours his opinion, that they were struck with blindness like the men of Sodom, Gen. 19:11 But this can hardly be true, for they saw Christ, and conversed with Him, although they knew Him not.
2. Cajetan thinks that their eyes were holden because their minds were so preoccupied, and taken up with the events which had come to pass. But the words of S. Mark 16:12, “He appeared in another form” are against this view.
3. S. Augustine (Epist. 59, Qusœt. viii.) is of opinion that some change had come over the countenance of Christ, as at the transfiguration. But this does not accord with the dignity of his glorified body, which is changeless and everlasting. Later on, Augustine (de Consens. Evang. iii. chap. 25) changed his opinion and says that the eyes of the disciples were clouded over by Satan, or a darkness of some kind cast upon them, so that they might not recognise Christ. But, like as He appeared to the Magdalen in the form of a gardener, so he appeared to the two disciples in another form. The circumstances of His appearance were in accordance with His will and uninfluenced by the action of Satan.
I say, therefore, that they did not know the Lord, because although the body of Christ is unchanged, yet because it was glorified and united to the divine Word it possessed the power both of withdrawing itself from view, and also of affecting the sight of beholders either by appearing in a different form, by changing the medium as mirrors do, and even by a direct change of vision. For this is what S. Luke says, “their eyes were holden,” by Jesus, just as if they had been covered by a veil so that they were unable to exercise their functions. Hence immediately that Jesus willed, they recognised Him.
It is much more easy to account for the fact that the disciples did not recognise the voice of Christ, for many without any difficulty so change the sound of their voices as to appear other than they are. S. Thomas, Suarez, and others.
There are several reasons why Christ appeared in another form to these disciples.
1. Because Christ and the angels when they appear to men make themselves like those to whom they appear. The two disciples were journeying: Christ therefore appeared to them as a wayfarer. They were in doubt concerning Him: therefore He made as if He were a stranger. So S. Augustine (de Consens. Evang. iii. 25) and S. Gregory (hom. 23 in Evang.) say, “The Lord did that outwardly in the eyes of the body which was done by themselves inwardly in the eyes of the mind. For they themselves inwardly both loved and doubted, but to them the Lord was present outwardly, although He did not reveal himself. To them, therefore, as they talked of Him He exhibited His presence, but as they doubted of Him He concealed the appearance which they knew. He indeed conversed with them, upbraided them with their hardness of heart, expounded the mysteries of holy Scripture which referred to Himself, yet because in their hearts He was a stranger to their faith, He made as though He would have gone further.”
2. Lest, if He at once manifested himself to the disciples they might be overcome by the novelty and newness of His resurrection, and imagine that they saw not Christ but a phantom, and therefore might remain doubtful whether He had risen from the dead. But now since He had conversed with them for some time, and then made Himself known, they could no longer doubt that He had risen from the dead.
3. “That the disciples might lay bare their sorrows and be cured of their doubt.” Theophylact. For if He had at once said that He was Christ, they would not have dared to confess that they had been doubtful of the resurrection.
4. That from the circumstances of His appearance He might teach us that we are pilgrims and strangers, seeking an heavenly country, which we should be ever longing for, and strive our utmost to obtain. Wherefore S. Francis, who happened on a certain occasion to be spending his Easter in a monastery, where there were none of whom he could ask charity, mindful of our Lord’s appearance to the two disciples in the form of a stranger on that very day, asked alms of the brothers themselves; and when he had received their alms, in a burst of sacred eloquence, he reminded them with all humility, that on their way through the desert of this world as strangers and pilgrims, like the true Israel they should in all lowliness of mind continue to celebrate the Passover of the Lord, i.e. their passage from this world to the Father; and he went on to inform them that it is the pilgrim’s rule to seek shelter under the roof of others, to thirst for their own country; and peacefully journey thereunto. (Chronicle of the order of S. Francis).
[17] Et ait ad illos : Qui sunt hi sermones, quos confertis ad invicem ambulantes, et estis tristes?
And he said to them: What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad?
And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk and are sad? σκυθρωποὶ, “sullen” in the sense of downcast. Christ knew whence their sadness arose, but asks them the cause, in order that He might remove it: “As I followed I heard you speak of some one who was slain at Jerusalem; tell me therefore who he was, and how, and for what reason he was put to death.”
[18] Et respondens unus, cui nomen Cleophas, dixit ei : Tu solus peregrinus es in Jerusalem, et non cognovisti quae facta sunt in illa his diebus?
And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger to Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days?
And one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said, &c. This Cleopas was the brother of S. Joseph, the husband of the Blessed Virgin, the father of S. James the less, and S. Jude, and the grandfather of S. James the greater and S. John, who were the sons of Salome, the daughter of Cleopas. See chap. 3:23.
Helecas, Bishop of Cæsarea, tells us on the authority of S. Jerome, that “Cleopas, or Alphæus, was the brother of S. Joseph, and one of the seventy disciples, and that he was slain by the Jews in the castle of Emmaus because of Christ.” He was therefore a martyr. Hence, in the Roman Martyrology, the 25th of September is put down as the birthday of Blessed Cleopas, the disciple of Christ, who they say was slain by the Jews for confessing the faith in the very house in which he had entertained the Lord. See also Dorotheus (Lives of the Patriarchs).
Again, Cleopas, in the Greek Κλεόπας, is the same as “all glory,” for the Jews who were subjugated by Alexander and the Greeks, took Greek names. But in the Hebrew the name may be taken to mean “adding to or increasing the Church,” for קהלה, kehala, is an assembly or church, and פוש, pus, is to multiply. For Cleopas gave many sons and daughters to the Church of Christ.
Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem? Theophylact and Euthymius translate παροικεῖς ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ by “Art thou (only) a dweller in Jerusalem?” Others render it, “Art thou (only) a sojourner in Jerusalem?” The meaning is “Art thou such a stranger in Jerusalem, and so ignorant of what has been done in it to Jesus of Nazareth, as to ask who and what he was, about whom we are so sorrowfully conversing? All know the circumstances of His crucifixion and death, and can talk of nothing else. How is it that thou only art ignorant of these things?”
[19] Quibus ille dixit : Quae? Et dixerunt : De Jesu Nazareno, qui fuit vir propheta, potens in opere et sermone coram Deo et omni populo :
To whom he said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people;
And He said unto them, What things? Christ constrains them to open their grief and to confess their doubts as to His resurrection.
And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth. They acknowledge Him, says Bede, to be a great prophet, but they do not speak of Him as the Son of God, either because their faith was imperfect, or because they feared lest they might fall into the hands of the persecuting Jews. For they knew not with whom they were speaking, and therefore concealed what they believed to be true. Because they say (verse 21) that they trusted that it had been he, as being the Messiah and the Son of God, which should have redeemed Israel.
Mighty in deed and in word. So should every Christian be, especially those who have devoted themselves to a religious life, or have been called to any office in the Church. What they preach they should perform, and teach first by example and then by word.
[20] et quomodo eum tradiderunt summi sacerdotes et principes nostri in damnationem mortis, et crucifixerunt eum :
And how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him, &c. They do not accuse the chief priests and the rulers, although they were persuaded of the injustice of their actions. For they feared lest this stranger might be a spy, seeking some cause of accusation against them.
[21] nos autem sperabamus quia ipse esset redempturus Israel : et nunc super haec omnia, tertia dies est hodie quod haec facta sunt.
But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed Israel: and now besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done.
But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel from the power of their enemies, e.g., from the power of the Romans.
“We trusted that he had been the Messiah who would have restored the kingdom of Israel to the same, or even greater, dignity than it had possessed in the time of David and of Solomon. But now that he has been so unworthily put to death, although we do not despair, we have but little hope.”
This was their grief, the wound which their faith had received, which Christ desired to hear from them, in order to heal.
“O disciples,” says S. Augustine (serm. 140 De Temp.), “ye were hoping, therefore ye do not now hope. Behold Christ lives, but your hope within you is dead;” and again, “He was walking with them as their companion, and yet was their leader and guide.”
And beside all this, to-day is the third day, &c. For Christ was crucified on the sixth day, and after three days rose from the dead. This is an aposiopesis, for the disciples, anxious and perplexed, knowing not what to think about Christ, as good as say, ‘Jesus when He was alive said that He would rise from the dead on the third day; but although this is the third day we know not whether He has risen or is yet to rise.” They were doubtful, balanced between hope and fear. “They speak thus,” says Theophylact, “as men in doubt, and seem to me to be very undecided in their minds, for they are not absolutely unbelieving, nor do they believe aright. For their words ‘we trusted that it had been he,’ &c., indicate incredulity, but when they make mention of the third day, they show themselves mindful of the words of Christ, ‘on the third day I shall rise again;’ ” and again, “On the whole they spake as men in perplexity and doubt.”
[22] Sed et mulieres quaedam ex nostris terruerunt nos, quae ante lucem fuerunt ad monumentum,
Yea and certain women also of our company affrighted us, who before it was light, were at the sepulchre,
Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished (ἐξέστησαν). For what the women had told inspired them with awe rather than fear, and, says Theophylact, “overthrew their doubting and unbelief, whilst it strengthened their faith and hope in the resurrection of Christ. Their fear therefore struggled with their hope, and between the two they were undecided and in doubt.”
[23] et non invento corpore ejus, venerunt, dicentes se etiam visionem angelorum vidisse, qui dicunt eum vivere.
And not finding his body, came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive.
[24] Et abierunt quidam ex nostris ad monumentum : et ita invenerunt sicut mulieres dixerunt, ipsum vero non invenerunt.
And some of our people went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said, but him they found not.
[25] Et ipse dixit ad eos : O stulti, et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae!
Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken.
Then said He unto them, O fools. Ἀνόητοι, rendered here in the Vulgate “stulti,” but Gal. 3:1., “insensati.” With these keen words Christ as the Master rebukes the disciples for their ignorance and slowness to believe. For a teacher is allowed to stimulate his disciples by sharp reproof to the pursuit of higher or more accurate knowledge. See S. Matt. 5:22.
So our nature, frail and dull of understanding, needs some such stimulus to enable it to believe in spiritual things, and to keep itself steadfast in the hope of their realisation.
[26] Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum, et ita intrare in gloriam suam?
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?
Ought not Christ … to enter into His glory? He calls His glorious resurrection and ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit, His exaltation over every creature, the adoration of His name, the spread of the gospel throughout all the world, and His eternal kingdom, “glory.”
“Ought not,” (“futurum erat,” the Arabic and Syriac). It behoved Christ through the Cross to enter glory:
1. Because the prophets had foretold it.
2. Because God the Father had decreed it from all eternity.
3. Because it was necessary that He should purchase our redemption by His death upon the Cross.
4. Because it was fitting that such glory should be obtained through the merit of such sufferings and labour.
5. Because it behoved Christ, as leader, to become an example to the martyrs, and to all those who strive through much tribulation to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The meaning is, “My death upon the Cross has shaken your faith and hope in My resurrection, therefore ye said ‘we trusted’ (sperabamus). But ye spake rashly and without cause. For this ought to have confirmed your faith, for there is none other way to the resurrection save through death, nor to glory save through suffering, and the reproach of the Cross.”
[27] Et incipiens a Moyse, et omnibus prophetis, interpretabatur illis in omnibus scripturis quae de ipso erant.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.
[28] Et appropinquaverunt castello quo ibant : et ipse se finxit longius ire.
And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther.
And He made as though He would have gone further. This was no deceit: for He would have gone on if the disciples had not constrained Him, but as He knew that they would thus constrain Him to abide with them, in this respect he was not willing, but was making as if (προσεποιεῖτο) He would have gone further.
Hence S. Augustine (Quæst. Evang.) says, “When one feigning has reference to a certain meaning, it is not a falsehood, but a certain figure of the truth.” And again, “A fiction founded on truth is a figure; not so founded, it is a lie.” And S. Gregory (hom. 23 in Evang.) writes, “By the word ‘fingere’ we mean to put together or form, hence modellers of clay we call ‘figuli.’ He who was the truth did nothing by deceit. He manifested Himself to them in the body, such as He came before them in their midst. He would prove them whether they could show charity to Him as a stranger, although they might not yet love Him as God.”
[29] Et coegerunt illum, dicentes : Mane nobiscum, quoniam advesperascit, et inclinata est jam dies. Et intravit cum illis.
But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them.
And they constrained Him. “From which example it is gathered,” says S. Gregory, “that strangers are not only to be invited to hospitality, but even to be taken by force.” And S. Augustine adds (Serm. 140 De Temp.), “Detain a guest, if you wish to recognise the Saviour; for hospitality restored what unbelief had taken away.”
Saying, Abide with us; for it is towards evening, and the day is far spent, i.e. it is drawing near sunset. In order to detain Christ as their guest they exaggerate the lateness of the hour, for they returned soon after to Jerusalem, which was a three hours’ journey.
Cardinal Hosius his whole life long had these words continually in his heart and on his lips, and died repeating often, “Abide with us, O Lord, for it is toward evening,” and in truth the Lord abode with him, working many marvels by his means in Poland, in Germany, and in Italy, which are related by his biographer Rescius, who ends by eulogising him as “the atlas of religion, the voice and other hand of Paul, the demolisher of Luther, the janitor of heaven, and the love and admiration of the world.”
[30] Et factum est, dum recumberet cum eis, accepit panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, et porrigebat illis.
And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.
He took bread and blessed it. He blessed it by causing it to become His body as in the consecration of the Eucharist. For that Christ thus consecrated it, although Jansenius and some others deny it, is clear:
1. Because S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke use the same words concerning the institution of the Eucharist, as S. Luke uses here.
2. Because this blessing does not appear to have been given at the commencement of the meal, for Christ wished not to vanish out of their sight before He had eaten with them, lest they might think him a phantom. It was given in the midst, or rather at the end, of the meal. It was not therefore the ordinary blessing on what had been provided for their use, but solemn and eucharistic.
3. This is clear also from the effect which this blessing of the bread had upon the disciples: “their eyes were opened and they knew Him.”
4. Furthermore, this is the opinion of the great majority of the Fathers. So the author quoted by S. Chrysostom (Hom. 17) says, “The Lord not only blessed the bread, but gave it with His own hand to Cleopas and his companion. But that which is given by His hand is not only sanctified, but sanctification and a cause of sanctity to the recipient.”
Again, “How did the Lord will to make Himself known? By the breaking of bread. We are content then; in the breaking of bread the Lord is made known unto us. In no other way is it His will to reveal Himself. Therefore, although we shall not see Him in bodily form, He has given us His flesh to eat.” S. Augustine (Serm. 140 De Temp.).
This passage of Holy Scripture is a proof of the use of one species only in the Eucharist, for it is clear that Christ neither consecrated nor gave the cup to the disciples. After He had blessed the bread, and given it to them, they knew Him, and immediately He vanished out of their sight. S. Augustine, Chrysostom, Bede and others.
 |
| And he vanished out of their sight. J-J Tissot |
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.
Their eyes were opened. “See here the power and effect of the Eucharist. It opens the eyes of the mind to the knowledge of Jesus, and enables it to comprehend heavenly and divine mysteries. For the flesh of Christ possesses a great and illuminative power.” Theophylact. Hence S. Augustine (Serm. 140 De Temp.) says, “Whosoever thou art that believest, the breaking of bread consoles thee, the absence of the Lord is no absence. Have faith, and He whom thou seest not is with thee.”
Tropologically, he goes on to say, “By the exercise of hospitality we come to the knowledge of Christ.” Again, “Let him who wishes to understand what he has heard, put in practice what he has understood.” “Behold the Lord was not known whilst He was speaking, but when He gives them to eat, He allows Himself to be recognised.” Gregory. Or according to the Gloss: “Truth is understood better in operation than by hearing; and none know Christ unless they are partakers of His Body, i.e. the Church, whose unity the Apostle commends in the sacrament of bread, saying, ‘we being many are one bread, and one body.’ ” 1 Cor. 10:17.
And He vanished out of their sight. ἄφαντσς ἐγένετο, absconditus ab illis, Arabic version. Christ was present with His disciples, but made Himself invisible to them: a power possessed, as theologians teach us, by His glorified body. So after His resurrection He was wont to appear to His disciples and vanish from their midst.
Calvin, rashly, denies this, and contrary to its meaning translates ἄφαντος by “He withdrew Himself.” He denies this somewhat craftily, lest he might be compelled to acknowledge that Christ was present in the Eucharist, but hidden and invisible.
The causes why Christ vanished out of their sight directly He was recognised by the disciples are these:—
1. To show that He had risen from the dead, and had become glorified. For it is the property of a glorified body to appear or disappear at will. His sudden disappearance therefore was a new argument by which Christ proved the truth of His resurrection.
2. To teach that by the resurrection He had passed from this mortal life to a state of glory, and therefore no longer held familiar converse with men, but with God and the angels.
3. To teach us how we ought to reverence Christ, and those blessed ones who have entered into heaven. For we are bound to render to our glorified Lord the worship of latria, and to the blessed saints that of dulia.
4. That the disciples might return to the Apostles, who were sorrowing over the death of Christ, and comfort them by the tidings of His resurrection and appearing.
[32] Et dixerunt ad invicem : Nonne cor nostrum ardens erat in nobis dum loqueretur in via, et aperiret nobis Scripturas?
And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures?
And they said one to another, Did not our hearts burn within us? This was a new and certain proof that Christ was alive from the dead. For Christ taught not as Aristotle, Plato, and the philosophers, but so as to inflame the hearts of his hearers with divine love. Let then all teachers and interpreters of Holy Scripture imitate their Master, and seek not only to enlighten the understandings of those who attend upon their teaching, but to kindle the love of God in their hearts as well. Let them not be content with being as the Cherubim, but be also as the Seraphim. Let them be as S. Francis and his disciple S. Bonaventura, who became known as the “Seraphic Doctor.”
So David wrote, “Thy word is very pure” (ignitum, Vulgate), Ps. 119:140; and Solomon: “Every word of God is pure,” Prov. 30:5; and Moses: “From His right hand went a fiery law,” Deut. 33:2.
So also Christ declared, “I am come to send fire on the earth.” S. Luke 12:49. Thus the Baptist “was a burning and a shining light,” S. John 5:35; and Elias the prophet “stood up as fire, and his word burned like a lamp,” Ecclus. 48:1. Let us be, each one, an Ignatius, a burning and fiery disciple and preacher of Christ, so that the words of the prophet may be true of us, “Their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps.” “They ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.”
From The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by J-J Tissot (1897)
Jesus remained longer with the disciples on the road to Emmaus than on any other occasion after His resurrection. As a rule, He showed Himself but for a few instants, said a few words, scarcely allowing anyone to touch Him, but this time He walked with the two Apostles for an hour. They laid their hands on His shoulders, the listened to His voice and were touched by His words, yet He seemed to them so much like any other man that they invited Him to supper. He accepted, went in with them and "sat down to meat". How was it that, seeing Him in so tangible a form before them, they did not recognise Him? "Their eyes were holden", says the sacred text. On other occasions it was as He appeared that He made Himself known, now it was as "He vanished out of their sight" that He revealed Himself. This sudden disappearance opened their eyes more fully even than the breaking of the bread which first led to their recognition of the divine Master.
To sites, both near Jerusalem, are each venerated as that of the Emmaus of the Gospels. The one which would appear to have the strongest claim is the village of El-Kubeibeh on the north-west, about three leagues from Jerusalem, which is exactly the distance specified in the text, that is to say "three score furlongs", the furlong being equal to 600 Greek feet, or the eighth of a Roman mile, which would give a distance of a little less than Severn English miles.
Mane nobiscum, quoniam advesperascit, et inclinata est jam dies.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam
Ad Jesum per Mariam
No comments:
Post a Comment