In Ancient Devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Twenty-Ninth Day, the two footnote citations are reversed; Matthew should be first and John 2nd. I know that many a holier and brighter monk has noticed this before. My question is why have they remained that way over the centuries, to remind the reader of the fallibility of us all, that even the holiest of men are not perfect and that we all rely on God to see us through? I thought it was delightful to discover an ancient error which had been left that way, like the scratch on a family heirloom, perhaps reminding us gently of a moment long ago and a loving father who has gone to God.
In Ancient Devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Twenty-Ninth Day, the two footnote citations are reversed; Matthew should be first and John 2nd. I know that many a holier and brighter monk has noticed this before. My question is why have they remained that way over the centuries, to remind the reader of the fallibility of us all, that even the holiest of men are not perfect and that we all rely on God to see us through? I thought it was delightful to discover an ancient error which had been left that way, like the scratch on a family heirloom, perhaps reminding us gently of a moment long ago and a loving father who has gone to God.