I noticed some of the discussion here about Saint Philomena and there is a lot of confusion about Saint Philomena, mostly generated by wrong information originally published in the early 1900’s in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Saint Philomena.
Her liturgical feast was removed in 1961. No official reason was given, but the assumption that has been printed that the reason was because nothing is known about Saint Philomena historically. However, the name on her tiles sealing her loculus (tomb) was Filumena. The Italians popularly refer to her as Filomena, the English, Philomena and the French, Philomène.
Regardless of “her story” revealed to Sr. Luisa di Gesu in August of 1833, revelations which received approval by the Holy Office, (presently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) on December 21, 1833.
The Catholic Encyclopedia wishes to ignore that fact, as they do many other more significant facts. They base their opinion principally on the questionable conclusions of one early twentieth century archeologist, Oracio Marucchi. In 1903, he posited that the apparent mis-ordering of the 3 tiles on the grave alleged to be Philomena’s—starting with “Lumena” on first tile, instead of “Paxte”—proved that the tiles had come from another, earlier, grave and had been re-used in hers. Therefore, he argued, the grave and remains discovered in 1802 were not that of “Filumena” but of another, unknown person.
Marucchi’s theory that the order of Philomena’s tiles argued against the grave being hers was shown to be groundless. Furthermore, the tiles used on Philomena’s grave date at least from the third century, precluding them from being those of an earlier second-century grave, as Marucchi alleged. The early Christians did not re-use brick tiles, only marble, because marble was very expensive and brick was not, and those of Philomena’s are of brick.
Two more contemporary archeologists, Prandi and Mustillo, after examining the actual tiles in 1963 also stated that the stance of Marucchi had no foundation. The evidence rested not only on tile position but on tile condition. The two archeologists pointed out that had the tiles been removed from another grave in order to be re-used for Philomena’s, damage would have been done to the outer edges of the tile where previously cemented. However, no damage was found on the tiles from St. Philomena’s loculus: “During the process of going from first to second usage, chips would have very likely been made to the edges of the brick tiles… [These tiles of Philomena] still have sound and undamaged matching edges along the line of fracture.”
Marucchi had never examined the gravesite nor the tiles themselves, but rather had made an abstract hypothesis without the necessary archeological investigation. Contemporary Austrian historian, George Markhof, strongly criticized Marucchi’s conclusions: “I hold the judgment of the Italian archeologist Marucchi to be superficial… something extremely surprising considering the excellent renown he enjoyed. Evidently he was prejudiced against Saint Philomena, and not disposed, as is suitable for a scientist, to investigate the merits of this affair in an objective manner.”
philomena.it
philomena.us
