Finally found it.
Please see #7. You mentioned looking for documentation. Outside of Scripture and St. Bridget, THE DOLOROUS PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST by Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) is probably the most important. It is on-line at http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm
I heard Mel Gibson mention Emmerich often as a major source, but not St. Bridget.
The image below is from the movie & must have been based on the images from St. Bridgets book (post7). They are too similar--IMO.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040227potc.htm
This conforms with the image on the Shroud of Turin.
I've looked at this image hundreds of times, but never "saw" the lash strokes, at least not in the same way that I do now after having seen "The Passion of the Christ." They're there.
The image on the Shroud corresponds exactly with the movie's depiction of the scourging. It's breathtaking. My previous understanding of the scourging and crucifixion has simply been obliterated.
Just a small note, the prayers have been edited by whomever compiled them to make them "politically correct".
It just "frosts" me to have the person pass them off as the words of Our Lord, when the person refuses to let them stand as He revealed them.
"As St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross make clear, however, although God can give new lights, most private revelation is "constructed" from the building materials of the memory and knowledge of the person. This means that the mystic's own religious, cultural and educational influences help determine how the visions are presented to them. This accounts, for example, for the variety in the details of the same events among different mystics. Some details may have been supplied by God, others taken from the presuppositions of the mystic. Since God's purpose is not to improve upon Scripture but to inflame the will with love, the source of the details are ultimately irrelevant to that purpose. In the end, the Church judges the authenticity of such writings not by these details but whether anything is contrary to faith and morals. It does not, therefore, guarantee that every detail is true, only that it is theologically safe."
It is in no way, shape, or form, meant to be construed as an attack on St. Bridget by me ;-)