Another Front in the Conciliar War, part four

One of the most absurd aspects of the newest front in the conciliar civil war that has broken out in the past week upon the release of “Archbishop” Carlo Mario Vigano’s testimony has been the utter lack of understanding about the nature of the papacy that is being exhibited all up and down and across the vast expanse of the conciliar divide. New fronts in the conciliar civil war keep opening up every day. 

One of these fronts was opened up by the President of Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Florida, Mr. James Towey, who boasts of being faithful to the teaching, such as it is, of “Pope Francis,” including, of course that contained the Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013. Here is an excerpt of Mr. Towey's statement, who has since apologized for his comments about Raymond Leo “Cardinal” Burke that had been contained in the first of three versions that have been published thus far:

There is nothing new about the rift between Pope Francis and some conservative members of the Church hierarchy. The battle lines seemed to have formed five years ago shortly after the Pope ascended to the chair of Saint Peter. In 2013 in his first major publication, The Joy of the Gospel, the Pope described confreres who “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style.” Recently he quoted these same words in a letter to the faithful, Rejoice and Be Glad, and described “false prophets who use religion for their own purposes, to promote their own psychological or intellectual theories. God infinitely transcends us; he is full of surprises.”

Yes, God is full of surprises. But the call for the Pope’s resignation by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ is not one of them. Neither is the challenge to the Pope’s authority by Raymond Cardinal Burke, an American prelate who has consistently opposed the direction Pope Francis has led the Church on certain matters (and may still be smarting from the Holy Father’s decision to remove him from his prominent position as head of the Holy See’s highest ecclesiastical court). The release of the Archbishop’s manifesto seemed timed to inflict the maximum damage possible to the Pope’s credibility, and the choreographed chorus of support by others in league with them, was just as troubling.

Contrary to the popular narrative, most conservative Catholics are not following suit and embracing their defiance, and certainly not on our campus. Ave Maria University is rightly known for our unqualified fidelity to the Church. We do this not because we are conservative (we are) but because this is the requirement of discipleship. This explains why our students love Pope Francis and support him wholeheartedly. He is the successor to Peter and our spiritual father. He bears the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Conservative Catholics may legitimately disagree with Pope Francis’ take on everything from the environment and capitalism, to marriage and family. Such dissent is healthy for the Church when properly channeled and respectfully communicated. But when Church dissent becomes openly hostile and rebellious, and some members of the hierarchy assert their opinions as if they were elected pope instead of Francis, faithful Catholics like our students will rally to the Supreme Pontiff’s defense. (Jim Towey Statement in Defense of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.)

Mr. Towey, it should be noted, is not an academic. He is a lawyer and an administrator, not one trained in theological scholarship or who holds an earned doctorate in academic discipline. There is thus a good deal of confusion in his attempt to defend the man he considers to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Now, I should hasten to add that even one who does hold an earned doctorate and who took theological courses in seminary is not immune to errors as I wrote one of the worst andmost ill-considered commentaries I have ever written as I did the bidding of the editor of a “conservative” Catholic publication to “refute” criticism of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II that had appeared in The Remnant in August of 1993. I will be making reparation for that piece of trash until I die as I knew that not everything was “hunky-dory swell” with “Papa” Wojtyla. Suffering from the dread disease known as Romanitas, though, less than three months after serving as a lector at the Polish Phenomenologist’s private offering of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, I wanted to show the “papal colors,” and I got roundly and rightly criticized by every single writer in The Remnant as a result.

This having been noted as a matter of full disclosure, as the saying goes today, Mr. Towey’s effort to defend “Pope Francis” does not suffer from the intellectual dishonesty that I exhibited twenty-five years ago. No, he is very sincere in his defense. No matter his sincerity, he is wrong on almost point and confused on many others.

First, there is no such thing as a “conservative” or a “liberal” Catholic. A Catholic either adheres to the totality of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Holy Catholic Church for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping or he does not. A Catholic who does not do so is a heretic.

Once again, therefore, let me pull out a few chestnuts to demonstrate this point:

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way." (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.  (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

No, there is no such thing as “partial credit” Catholicism, and Catholics do not use political terms to identify themselves. No modifying adjective is needed when it comes to Catholics and their Catholic Faith. It is all or nothing. It is black and white:

Second, yes, Catholics must be obedient to a true pope.

Our last truly canonized pope, Pope Saint Pius X, whose feast day is celebrated in two days, that is, on Monday, September 3, 2018, explained the constituent elements of obedience to a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter in an allocution he gave to Italian priests on November 18, 1912, the Feast of the Dedication of the Churches of Saints Peter and Paul, which was the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Apostolic Union:

Distracted with so many occupations, it is easy to forget the things that lead to perfection in priestly life; it is easy [for the priest] to delude himself and to believe that, by busying himself with the salvation of the souls of others, he consequently works for his own sanctification. Alas, let not this delusion lead you to error, because nemo dat quod nemo habet [no one gives what he does not have]; and, in order to sanctify others, it is necessary not to neglect any of the ways proposed for the sanctification of our own selves….

The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.

It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: RORATE CÆLI: “Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Yes, one must obey the pope.

Ah, but a true pope cannot teach anything that is heretical or otherwise contrary to the Catholic Faith.

This leads to the third point, namely, that the so-called “apostolic exhortation” referred in Mr. Trowey’s statement, Evangelii Gaudium, contains rank heresy, which means that “Pope Francis” is not “Pope Francis” but merely a man of Argentinian birth who does not hold to the Catholic Faith in all of its holy integrity.

Here is the proof:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as it is published in its conciliar captivity:

247. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.

248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.

249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013.)

If one professes belief that a particular claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter is legitimate and is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, a matter about which no Catholic is free to err or to profess indifference, then one must accept as binding upon his conscience and beyond all criticism even Evangelii Gaudium as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church without complaint, reservation or qulification of any kind.

Well, is the Mosaic Covenant still valid?

Has it never been revoked?

Those such as Mr. Towey must agree with their "pope's" statement as they must "obey" the man they think is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. 

Alas, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "teaching" on the Jews is heretical, and it is in this and in so many other ways that he shows himself to be a perfect disciple of the falsehoods promulgated by the authority of his predecessors since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Jorge Mario Bergolio lacks the Catholic Faith, He has openly denied Catholic doctrine on this subject with great boldness. Although he style is more vulgar, visceral profane that those who have perceded him, he is, of course, merely following those before him who have denied, whether implicitly or explicitly, the Catholic truth about the Old Covenant that was summarized so clearly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis was inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1943. Although it was nothing new whatsoever, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed an irreformable teaching that is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose to insert a contrary teaching into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis shows that he is not in perfect communion of mind and heart with his predecessors and is thus a heretic who is outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter. Such a man is never to be obeyed as to do so is to obey the adversary himself.

Like examples on every matter of doctrine on which the conciliar revolutionaries defect from the Catholic Faith could be given ad infinitum, ad nauseam. However, I have neither the time nor the desire to rewrite Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card, which was published about four months ago.

Fourth, while it is true that Catholics may disagree about the specifics of such things as capitalism, they are not free to disagree with the principles of moral justice governing economics as they have been elucidated by our true popes. They are not free to dissent from anything that a true pope causes to be inserted into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis, something that was explained sixty-two years ago by the eminent theological, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton in the American Ecclesiastical Review, a journal whose editor he was between 1943 and 1963:

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church.  And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice.  There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings.  They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities.  These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements.  The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence.  It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view.  The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology.  For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth.  And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past fifty years or more by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

As noted in part two of this series, therefore, one of the most useful aspects of the Vigano testimony is that is has laid bare the incalculable harm that the conciliar revolution has done to Catholic teaching on the nature of the papacy and the authority of papal teaching. A true pope must be obeyed, to be sure, and a true pope can never teach error, no less outright heresy.

Indeed, the conciliar “popes” have been responsible for attacking the nature of the papacy and for needlessly dividing believing Catholics, thus causing enmities aplenty, including estrangements among families, relatives, friends and former colleagues and acquaintances. Catholicism unites. Error divides.

Quite to the contrary of the position Mr. Towey expressed in his statement defending the Argentine Apostate, Catholics must be of one mind about the Holy Faith:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The ethos of the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisteria of the postconcilar “popes” have destroyed Catholic unity, making open dissent from “papal” teaching and disrespect for the person of one considered to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter an institutionalized feature of the false religious sect that is Catholicism’s counterfeit ape, conciliarism. No, dissent from any teaching that a pope decides to insert into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis is not permitted. Those who believe otherwise have to reckon with the considered theological conclusions that had been reached by the Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton sixty-two years ago.

“And I am the pope, I do need to give reasons for any of my decisions”

Among the other propitious effects of Father Carlo Mario Vigano’s testimony has been a number the plethora of hard-news stories about the “Dictator Pope” that have appeared on websites, including Lifesite News. One of those stories, published just this morning, provided Vigano’s account of how he had received clearance from officials in the conciliar Vatican for Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis to meet “Pope Francis” (see Vigano Reveals What Really Happened When Jorge Met Kim Davis). The most remarkable part of this story is that it contains the following conclusion the former Vatican nuncio to the United States of America reaches about an August 28, 2018, story in The New York Times that quotes a Chilean abuse victim saying that “Pope Francis” did not know who Kim Davis was and that he, Bergoglio, had fired Vigano as a result. The following are Vigano’s own words:

As mentioned at the beginning, on August 28, 2018, the New York Times reported an interview with Juan Carlos Cruz, in which Cruz reported that during his meeting with the Pope, in April 2018, the Pope told him about the Davis case. According to Cruz, the Pope said: “I did not know who the woman was and he [Msgr. Viganò] snuck her in to say hello to me — and of course they made a whole publicity out of it. And I was horrified and I fired that Nuncio.”

One of them is lying: either Cruz or the Pope? What is certain is that the Pope knew very well who Davis was, and he and his close collaborators had approved the private audience. Journalists can always check, by asking the prelates Becciu, Gallagher and Parolin, as well as the Pope himself.

It is clear, however, that Pope Francis wanted to conceal the private audience with the first American citizen condemned and imprisoned for conscientious objection. (see Vigano Reveals What Really Happened When Jorge Met Kim Davis .) For my own contemporary commentary on the meeting and Vigano's probable fate, please see 

Credibility is not one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s strong points. It is sure interesting to see how this is playing out as “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano (I almost misspelled his name again!) has no intention of backing down or rolling over to serve as a punching bag for Jorge and his boys.

Another Lifesite News story that was quoted in part three of this series is worth citing once again as it contained the following quotation attributed to Bergoglio by the now former prefect of the misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Ludwig Muller:

“And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.” (Jorge Dismissed Mueller for Following Policies to deal with clerical abusers.)

While it is correct that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter has plenipotentiary powers to choose his subordinates, it is interesting that a man committed to the heresy of “episcopal collegiality” can act in decidedly arbitrary ways when it comes to dealing with perceived “restorationists” (the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, Raymond Leo Burke, etc.) and “Pharisaical legalists.” Bergoglio is an ecclesiastical Stalinist. Just as there was no law but Soviet law in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and no law but Nazi law in Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich, so is it the case that there is no law but Bergoglio law in the mind of the Argentine Apostate, who is both a hypocrite and a liar.

More the point, though, is that Bergoglio’s belief that “I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions” extends beyond his arbitrary treatment of Vatican personnel and “rigid” “bishops” to the realm of doctrine itself. “Pope Francis” really believes that he can do with Catholic teaching pretty much anything he wants, although he, being Jesuitically trained, tries to provide himself with such figurative fig leaves as “accompanying sinners” and his false concept of “mercy” (see   (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four; Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven).

Is it true that a true pope can do whatever he wants?

Are the Ten Commandments that God revealed to Moses and that have been entrusted exclusively to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church subject to change or alteration of any type?

Can a true pope change any of those Ten Commandments?

Can a true pope change, for example, the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against the direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life?

Can a true pope change the Sixth Commandment's prohibition against adultery?

Can a true pope change the Seventh Commandment's prohibition against stealing?

Can a true pope change the Eighth Commandment's prohibition against bearing false witness against thy neighbor?

Can a true pope change the Ninth Commandment to teach us that it is permissible to covet thy neighbor's wife?

Can a true pope change the Tenth Commandment to teach us that it is permissible to covet thy neighbor's goods?

Why is it, therefore, that some Catholics, angered by criticism of the conciliar “popes’”  exercises in false ecumenism, believe that a true pope can do what he wants with the First and Second Commandments?

What true pope has dared to enter into a mosque, taking off his shoes and assuming the Mohammedan prayer position to pray in the direction of Mecca?

What true pope has dared to venerate the Koran or the symbols of Buddhism or Jainism or Hinduism?

What true pope after Saint Peter and the subsequent destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. has dared to entered into a Talmudic synagogue and to be treated as an inferior to a rabbi as he treats this false religion as a perfectly valid means of sanctification and salvation?

"Well," some people continue to say, "he's the 'pope.' He can do whatever he wants, you know."

Really?

Can a true pope declare that there are eight persons in the Divine Godhead?

Can a true pope declare that there are many "true" religions in the world?

Can a true pope declare that one is free to believe or to disbelieve in the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Can a true pope declare that one is free to disbelieve in the doctrine of Purgatory?

"Ah," some conciliarists might object, "a true pope would never declare such things."

Yes. Precisely. And this is why it is beyond the power of a true pope to "change" the First Commandment by placing strange gods before him by going into places of false worship and treating the ministers of false religions as having a mission from from the true God of Divine Revelation to sanctify and save souls while appearing as an equal, if not an inferior, to those minister, thereby conveying in a de facto manner the impression that the "pope" is simply one true religious leader among so many others in the world.

No true pope can change the laws of God.

It is beyond the power of any human being on the face of this earth to make it "pleasing" to God to esteem the symbols of false religions, each of which is form the devil, or to term places of false worship as "sacred" or to place false religions on a level of equality with Catholic Church.

As a matter of fact, of course, the conciliar "popes" have attempted to tamper with the immutable precepts of the Ten Commandments over and above the gross offenses that they have given God by openly and flagrantly violating the First and Second Commandments.

The false "popes" have dared to tamper with the Third Commandment by permitting Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending a staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service on Saturday afternoon or evening and to attend such a staging on the afternoon or evening liturgical before one of the few Holy Days of Obligation that have not been moved or whose obligation has not been eliminated as a result of a certain feast falling on a Monday or a Saturday. This has contributed mightily to the descralizing of Sundays as Catholics of all ages get their "obligation" out of the way on Saturday afternoons or evenings in order to have Sundays "free" for the "really important" things in life (football, baseball, golf, boating, sleeping in, watching the Sunday morning and afternoon interview programs, etc.).

The false "popes" have dared to tamper with the Fourth Commandment in a variety of ways, including endorsing the separation of Church and State, a thesis termed absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, thereby eviscerating the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and they have undermined the authority of parents to be the principal educators of their children by mandating classroom instruction, much of which is graphic and seeks to mainstream immorality in the name of "compassion" and "dignity," in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in full violation of the following prohibition placed upon such instruction by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

How do children learn to grow in purity?

By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength.

By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it.

By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing.

Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment?

Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have indeed undermined the Natural Law right of parents to educate their children as they have countenanced the undermining of the innocence and purity of the young.

The conciliar "popes" have dared to undermine the Fifth Commandment in a number of ways, principally by making it appear as though the imposition of the death penalty by the civil state upon malefactors found guilty after due process of law of heinous crimes is an offense against both justice and the "dignity of the human person." A true pope can no more make it appear as though the death penalty is opposed to the Fifth Commandment than he could proclaim that there there are four natures and six souls in the Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He hath not the power to do such a thing.

Yes, for the conciliar "popes" to be correct about the death penalty, then a true pope, Pope Saint Pius V would have had to have been wrong when he wrote that it should be imposed by the civil state equally upon clerics caught in perverse sins against nature as upon laymen caught in such sins:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal. 

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law. 

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)

We are eyewitnesses to "papal" statements and actions that are entirely without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. There is a reason for this: such statements and actions have not been made by true "popes" as true Successors of Saint Peter, as I have come to learn relatively late to the scene, to be sure, as men who do and say such things cannot be members of the Catholic Church

Yes, what "conservatives" such as the president of Ave Maria University and so many others within the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not seem to understand or accept, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Modernist who has a seething contempt for the concept of immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and for the fact that it is both possible and necessary for hardened sinners to reform their lives now, not later, as to do refuse to exhort such sinners to repent and reform with alacrity is to serve as their accessories and enablers in their sins. Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did teach NOT ethereal "ideals" that are impossible for men to realize. He gave us the teaching authority of the Catholic Church to direct our minds and endowed her with the supernatural helps to aid us in the conversion of our lives on a daily basis.

The mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on matters of morality was summarized perfectly by Pope Pius XII when he addressed the Thirtieth General Convention of the Society of Jesus in 1957 as our last true Sovereign Pontiff thus far condemned those who based their view of morality on the state of things as they are, not as God wills them to be. This gold nugget of a quotation of Pope Pius XII’s address to the Thirtieth General Convention of the Society of Jesus in 1957 was contained in article on Catholic college education authored by the late Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Although the late Monsignor Kelly, whom I knew and consulted on occasion in the 1980s and 1990s, tried to “save” that which was beyond saving because it was in the hands of apostates, the history he provided should illustrate the fact that not all was well in the 1950s, the supposed “golden era” of Catholicism in the United States of America. All manner of revolutionaries, including those within the Society of Jesus, got imprimaturs from like-minded Americanist bishops, men such as John Dearden, Francis Spellman, Richard Cushing, Albert Meyer, et al,, to push the envelope, especially in the field of bioethics, as far as they could during the waning years of the pontificate of our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII.

Pope Pius XII, however, knew of the “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one.” His demand that the Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done” applies to a certain man named Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina. The stage for the conciliar revolution was pretty well set by the time of the death of Pope Pius XII, who demanded that the likes of those “educating” Bergoglio “be cut off as soon as possible from the body of” the Society of Jesus as they were “unworthy sons.”

Readers will either accept or reject the simple truth that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us errors of any kind, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to sponsor one blasphemous, apostate "novelty" after another. The Catholic Church has condemned "novelty" as she cleaves to her immutable Deposit of Faith:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

I report. You decide. It is, however, a great grace to recognize the truth and to embrace it no matter the earthly consequences that will occur as a result.

This is the time of the great apostasy, a time in which there has been a general falling away from the Catholic Faith, a falling away that has been aided, abetted and sustained by the lords of conciliarism who have convinced Catholics to accept falsehoods as true and to treat the truths of the Holy Faith with contempt as “relics” of the “past” that belong in a “museum.”

We must, as is noted on this site constantly, rely upon the tender assistance of Our Lady, who is honored this day, Saturday, September 1, 2018, in many and diverse places under the title of Our Lady of Consolation, which is why we should petition her under this title with the following prayers today, perhaps after we pray a set of mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary:

Oh Heavenly Mother I come to thee today; draw me closer to thy Divine Son, Jesus. I humbly ask for thy help, protection and thy guidence. With a heart full of gratitude, I thank you for all of thy past joys and consolations. When I feel sad and rejected, may I have the courage and strength to reach out to thee in times of sadness and loneliness. When troubles beset me, may I have the faith and the confidence to pray to thee, my dearest Mother. For thou are the Consoler of the Afflicted. I pray to thee to be with me at the hour of my death. (state sorrows or requests)

May Our Lady of Consolation be my consolation, always for this I pray. Amen.

Holy Mary, Mother of Consolation Prayer

Holy Mary Mother of Consolation, I take refuge in thy most loving heart with all the confidence of which I am capable; thou shalt be the dearest object of my love and veneration. To thee, who art the dispenser of the treasures of Heaven, I shall always have recourse in my sorrows to have peace, in my doubts to have light, in my dangers to be defended, in all my needs to obtain thy assistance. At the hour of my death, graciously receive my last breaths and obtain for me a place in thy heavenly home.

Mother Mary, Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

With confidence in the maternal intercession of Our Lady and the power of her Most Holy Rosary and with assistance of Saint Giles and the other Fourteen Holy Helpers, may we preserve in our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by seeking to offer up all the difficulties of the present moment for the greater honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and in reparation for our own many sins.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.