Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                       June 26, 2006

Communion With Novelty?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Well, Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan is at it again, explaining for the umpteenth time that one must demonstrate his "full communion" with Pope Benedict XVI by assisting at the novelty known as the Novus Ordo Missae. While Bishop Rifan noted in a recent interview that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is doctrinally clearer, he stated that there were no doctrinal problems in the Novus Ordo Missae and that priests dedicated to the Mass of Tradition should offer it in order to show their fealty to Benedict XVI.

A number of articles (Two in Catholic Family News in 2004, "The Price of Recognition" and "The Price of Recognition is Much Higher Than We Thought," and two on this site, The Faith Must Be Defended and A Bishop's Wonderland: A Response to Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan) have dealt with Bishop Rifan's assertion that "perfect" communion with the pope must be demonstrated by means of assisting at a Mass that his own community of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, once derided as indeed dangerous to souls and absolutely unworthy for any Catholic to assist at. 

As repetition is the mother of learning, I will once again post here the comments of a courageous bishop of Campos, the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, who did indeed raise doctrinal questions about the Novus Ordo. Writing directly to Pope Paul VI in 1969, Bishop de Castro Mayer stated the following:

Most Holy Father,

After a close examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, which will enter into use on November 30 next, and after having prayed and reflected a great deal, I consider that it is my duty, as a Catholic priest and bishop, to lay before Your Holiness my anguish of conscience, and to formulate, with the piety and confidence that a son owes to the Vicar of Christ, the following request.

The Novus Ordo Missae shows, by its omissions, and by the changes that it has brought to the Ordinary of the Mass, as well as by a good number of the general rules that describe the understanding and nature of the new Missal in its essential points, that it does not express, as it ought to do the theology of the Holy Sacrifice as established by the Holy Council of Trent in its XXII session. The teaching of the simple catechism cannot overcome this fact. I attach below the reasons that, in my opinion, justify this conclusion.

The pastoral reasons that could, perhaps, be invoked, initially, in favor of the new structure of the Mass, cannot make us forget the doctrinal arguments that point in the opposite direction. Furthermore, they do not seem to be reasonable. The changes that prepared the Novus Ordo have not helped to bring about an increase in the Faith and the piety of the faithful. To the contrary, they remain very disturbed, with a confusion that the Novus Ordo has increased, for it has encouraged the idea that nothing is unchangeable in the Holy Church, not even the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Moreover, as I indicate in the attached reasons, the Novus Ordo not only fails to inspire fervor, but to the contrary, diminishes the Faith in central truths of the Catholic life, such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament, the reality of the propitiatory Sacrifice, the hierarchical Priesthood.

I hereby accomplish an imperious duty in conscience by demanding, humbly and respectfully, that Your Holiness might deign, by a positive act that eliminates every doubt, to authorize us to continue using the Ordo Missae of Saint Pius V, whose effectiveness in bringing about the spread of Holy Church and an increase in the fervor of priests and faithful has been proven, as Your Holiness reminded us with so much unction.

I am convinced that Your Holiness’s fatherly kindness will bring to an end the perplexities that have risen in my heart of a priest and bishop.

Prostrate at Your Holiness’ feet, in humble obedience and filial piety, I implore you Apostolic Benediction.

+ Antonio de Castro Mayer
Bishop of Campos, Brazil


The Novus Ordo Missae consists in general norms for the text of the Ordinary of the Mass. Both the text and the norms propose a new Mass that does not consider sufficiently the definitions of the Council of Trent concerning this matter, and constitutes, for this reason, a grave danger for the integrity and purity of the Catholic Faith. We have only examined here a few points, that, we believe, establish that which I have affirmed.

I. Definition of the Mass

In its no.7 the new Ordo gives the follow as a definition of the Mass: "Cena dominica seu Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: ‘Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum’" (Mt. 18:10) 1.

In this definition:

There is insistence on the Mass understood as a meal. Moreover, this way of seeing the Mass can be found frequently, all along the general norms (cf. v.g. nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56 etc.). It seems even that the intention of the new Ordo Missae is to inculcate this aspect of the Mass, to the detriment of the other, which is essential, namely that the Mass is a sacrifice.

In fact, in the quasi-definition of the Mass given in article 7, the character of the sacrifice of the Mass is not signified.

Likewise, it attenuates the sacramental character of the priest, that distinguishes him from the faithful.

Furthermore, nothing is said of the intrinsic value of the Mass, independently of the presence of the assembly. Much to the contrary, it is supposed that there is no Mass without the "congregatio populi", for it is the "congregatio" that defines the Mass.

Finally, the text allows a confusion to exist between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, for it applies to the Mass the text from Saint Matthew which only concerns the spiritual presence.

The confusion between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, already seen in article 7, is confirmed in article 8, which divides the Mass into a "table of the word" and a "table of the Lord’s body". But it also hides the aspect of sacrifice in the Mass, which is the principal of all, since the aspect of a meal is only a consequence, as can be deduced from Canon 31 of the XXII session of the Council of Trent.

We observe that the two texts from Vatican II, quoted in the notes, do not justify the concept of the Mass proposed in the text. We also note that the few expressions, that are more or less passing references, in which are found expressions such as this, at the Altar: "sacrificium crucis sub signis sacramentalibus praesens efficitur" (no. 259) are not sufficient to undo the ambiguous concept, already inculcated in the definition of the Mass (no. 7), and in many other passages in the general norms.

II. The Purpose of the Mass

The Mass is a sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity. Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. To the contrary, that which, in the Mass of Saint Pius V, shows clearly this sacrificial end is suppressed in the new Ordo. Examples include the prayers "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas" from the Offertory and the final prayer "Placeat, tibi, Sancta Trinitas". Likewise the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity has ceased to be the Preface for Sunday, the Lord’s Day.

As well as being the "sacrificium laudis Sanctissimae Trinitatis" 2, the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Council of Trent insists greatly on this aspect, against the errors of the Protestants (Chapter 1 & Canon 3). Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. Here and there can be found a reminder of one or other expression that could be understand as implying this concept. But it never appears without the shadow of a doubt. Also, it is absent when the norms declare the purpose of the Mass (no. 54). In fact, it is insufficient to express the theology of the Mass established by the Council of Trent to simply affirm that it brings about "sanctification". It is not clear that this concept necessarily implies that of propitiation. Moreover the propitiatory intention, so clearly visible in the Mass of Saint Pius V, disappears in the New Mass. In fact the Offertory prayers Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi and that for the blessing of the water Deus qui humanae substantiae… reformasti have been replaced by other that make no reference to propitiation at all. It is rather the sense of a spiritual banquet that they impress.

III. The Essence of the Sacrifice

The essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass lies in repeating what Jesus did at the last Supper, and this not as a simple recitation, but accompanied by the gestures. Thus, as the moral theologians have said, it is not enough to simply say again historically what Jesus did. The words of consecration must be pronounced with the intention of repeating what Jesus accomplished, for when the priest celebrates, he represents Jesus Christ, and acts "in persona Christi".3 In the new Ordo there is no such precise statement, although it is essential. To the contrary, in the passage that speaks of the narrative part, nothing is said of the properly sacrificial part. Thus, when it explains the Eucharistic Prayer, it speaks of the "narratio institutionis" 4 (no. 54 d.) in such a way that the expressions: "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit" 5 and another at the end of the consecration: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem" 6 have the meaning indicated by the explanation given in the preceding general norms (no. 54 d.). We remark that the final phrase of the (traditional) consecration "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis"7 were much more expressive of the reality that in the Mass, it is the action of Jesus Christ which is repeated.

Furthermore, placing other expressions in the midst of the essential words of consecration, namely "Accipite et manducate omnes" 8 and "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes" 9, introduce the narrative part into the same sacrificial act. Whereas, in the Tridentine Mass the text and movements guide the priest naturally to accomplish the propitiatory sacrificial action and almost impose this intention on the priest who celebrates. In this way the "lex supplicandi" 10 is perfectly in conformity with the "lex credendi" 11. We cannot say this for the New Ordo Missae. However, the New Ordo Missae ought to make it easier for the celebrant to have the intention necessary to accomplish validly and worthily the act of the Holy Sacrifice, especially given the importance of this action, not mentioning the instability of modern times, nor even the psychological conditions of the younger generations.

IV. The Real Presence

The sacrifice of the Mass is bound to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Real Presence is a consequence of the sacrifice. By transsubstantiation the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Savior is accomplished, and thus the sacrifice takes place. As a consequence the perpetual Victim is present on the altar. The Blessed Sacrament is nothing other than the Victim of the Sacrifice, who remains once the sacrificial act has been accomplished. As a consequence of the new definition of the Mass (no. 7) the new Ordo allows ambiguity to exist concerning the Real Presence, which is more or less confused with the simply spiritual presence, indicated by the phrase "where two or three are gathered in my name".

Moreover, the suppression of nearly all the genjflexions, traditional expression of adoration in the Latin church, the thanksgiving seated, the possibility of celebrating without an altar stone, on a simple table, the equating of the eucharistic banquet with a spiritual meal, all lead to the obscuring of the Faith in the Real Presence.

The equating of the eucharistic banquet to a spiritual meal leaves open the idea that Jesus’ presence in the Blessed Sacrament is bound to its use, as his presence in the word of God. From this it is not difficult to conclude with the Lutheran error, especially in a society that is little prepared to think on a higher plane. The same conclusion is favored by the function of the altar: it is only a table, on which there is not normally place for the tabernacle, in which the Victim of the sacrifice is customarily kept. The same can be said for the custom for the faithful to communicate with the same host as the celebrant. By itself, this gives the idea that once the sacrifice is completed, there is no longer any place for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. Thus none of the changes in the new Ordo Missae lead to greater fervor in the Faith towards the Real Presence, but they rather diminish it.

V. The hierarchical priesthood

The Council of Trent defined that Jesus instituted his apostles priests, in order that they, and the other priests, their successors, might offer His Body and Blood (Session xxii, Canon 2). In this manner, the accomplishment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is an act that requires priestly consecration. On the other hand, the same Council of Trent condemned the Protestant thesis, according to which all Christians would be priests of the New Testament. Hence it is that, according to the Faith, the hierarchical priest is alone capable of accomplishing the sacrifice of the New Law. This truth is diluted in the new Ordo Missae.

In this Missal, the Mass belongs more to the people than to the priest. It belongs also the priest, but as a part of the assembly. He no longer appears as the mediator "ex hominibus assumptus in iis quae sunt ad Deum" 12 inferior to Jesus Christ and superior to the faithful, as Saint Robert Bellarmine says. He is not the judge who absolves. He is simply the brother who presides.

We could make other observations to confirm what we have said above. However, we feel that the points that we have raised suffice to show that the new Ordo Missae is not faithful to the theology of the Mass, as established definitively by the Council of Trent, and that consequently it constitutes a serious danger for the purity of the Faith.

+ Antonio, Bishop of Campos

Well, Bishop Rifan, was Bishop de Castro Mayer right or wrong? Be a man. Speak up. You said in an AngelQueen.com interview a few months ago that the sixty-two reasons not to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae that had been compiled by the priests of Campos did not represent the "official" position of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney.  Leaving aside that laughable exercise in positivism, Bishop de Castro Mayer's letter to Pope Paul VI is undeniably authentic, isn't it? Has it not proved to be prophetic of the disastrous results wrought by the synthetic concoction that is the Novus Ordo Missae? Things have gotten worse, not better, in the past thirty-seven years. Will you publicly stand by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer's condemnation of the Novus Ordo Missae as "a serious danger for the purity of the Faith?" If not, then this must mean that Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer was demonstrating a willful disobedience to the Holy See rather than standing fast to the perpetually binding nature of Quo Primum. Or has Bishop de Castro Mayer's letter to Pope Paul VI become "obsolete," to the use of the language of the current Holy Father when referring to "earlier" pronouncements of the Catholic Church that are protected by the infallibility accorded the Ordinary Magisterium?

To demonstrate a "perfect" communion with the conciliar popes is to demonstrate a "perfect" communion with conciliarism itself, that is, with the novelties of religious liberty and ecumenism. It is to demonstrate a "perfect" communion with the "Charismatic Renewal" and "Focolare" and "Communion and Liberation" and all of the related, Sillonist errors that encompass the monstrosity known as World Youth Day. It is to demonstrate a "perfect" communion with these liturgical events that, far from being anomalies, are actually the norm in many places in this country and the world:

This is a "Mass" (perhaps even a dinner) at Corpus Christi University Parish Church in Toledo, Ohio.

These folks are in "perfect communion" with Rome. Not a blessed thing will happen to any one of them for participating in this travesty, which took place in a "church" designed by a priest of the Diocese of Albany, New York, Father Richard Vosko, who helped to design the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. Indeed, here is a brief excerpt from an article written by Christopher Zehnder in a 2001 issue of Los Angeles Mission:

The name Richard Vosko is not a revered one in many Catholic circles. A visit to his website, http://www.rvosko.com, where one can peruse his handiwork in interior design of churches, will indicate why. One of his more "interesting and eclectic" projects is the Corpus Christi University parish church in Toledo, Ohio. The church features an altar table set at the center of a labyrinth painted on the floor. Tall candlesticks mark the "four corners" of the labyrinth, which conference-room-style chairs surround in ranks of concentric circles. Plain glass windows let in the natural light illumining a church that has all the flavor of a seminar conference hall.

Is it necessary to point out that the "labyrinth," once used for penitential prayer in Catholic churches in the Middle Ages, and the concentric circles are part and parcel of the diabolical "New Age" movement's bogus "spirituality?" Is it necessary to point out that the "New Age" movement frequently "borrows" from Catholicism to offer its false worship to the devil in the form of narcissistic introspection having nothing to do with true introspection, that is, a Catholic examination of conscience? Is it necessary to point out that there are "yin and yan" symbols in the concrete walkway in front of Vosko's Our Lady of the Angels monstrosity alongside the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles? Was not the late Bishop James Hoffman, under whose episcopate the "church" pictured above in Toledo was constructed, in "perfect communion" with the late Pope John Paul II when he died in 2003? Is not Roger Cardinal Mahony, who spent over $200 million to build his offense to the Faith in Los Angeles, in "perfect communion" with Pope Benedict XVI? Perhaps the problem is "perfect communion" with conciliarism?

No, it is plain that to be in "perfect communion" with conciliarism is to betray the Catholic Faith. This is why the words of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who opposed the errors of religious liberty and ecumenism, echo those of the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer that seemed to have slipped out of Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan's memory bank:

What could be clearer.  We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, for the conciliar church to which we have no wish to belong.  

The conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.  It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship; all already condemned by the church in many a document – official and definitive.

This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist so much on obedience to today’s church, prescinding from yesterday’s church as though it no longer existed.

This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principals opposed to those of the Catholic Church.  This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic!

To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. 

Today’s Church is the true Church only to whatever extent it is a continuation of and one body with the Church of yesterday and of always.  The norm of Catholic faith is tradition.  The demand of His Eminence Msgr Benelli is then illuminating:  submission to the conciliar church, to the Vatican II church,  to the schismatic church!

For our part we persevere in the Catholic church by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Yes, the Archbishop said different things at different times. So have a lot of us in these times when confusion has reigned supreme in the wake of the ethos of conciliarism. Archbishop Lefebvre was, however, absolutely consistent in his fierce opposition to religious liberty and ecumenism. How tragically ironic it is, therefore, that some traditional priests and laity, who do not realize that their embrace of the heresy of Americanism is not reflective of patriotism but of the idolatry of a nation that is nationalism, show more of a "perfect communion" with conciliarism than they realize in refusing to teach the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King and refusing to insist that every nation, including the United States of America, be confessionally Catholic. As I pointed out recently in Loyal Only to the Adversary and A Heresy is a Heresy, the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church is that the civil state must recognize her as the one and only true religion. And while Pope Leo XIII did note in Libertas, June 20, 1888, that the Church will and does make pragmatic concessions to the reality of a given situation, she nevertheless still insists on the necessity of the civil state's recognition of the Catholic Church so that the two will cooperate in their respective spheres of competency to help to foster the pursuit of the common good in civil society in light of man's Last End.

Some traditionalists, however, including some sedevacantist priests, really demonstrate a perfect communion of mind and will with that of Benedict XVI, who has praised the ethos of American pluralism as the model for "healthy laicism" or a "healthy secularity," going so far as to commit acts of intellectual dishonesty in the process. The typical act of dishonesty to is quote Pope Leo XIII's diplomatic words of support in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, for those things in the American experience that could be praised fairly and honestly without adding the important qualifier that reiterated the themes he had outlined in Immortale Dei and Libertas and would later repeat in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus:

But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII had noted in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, the simple fact that a government excludes the true Church from its very constitutions and laws is destined for ruin. A government that accepts religious indifferentism as the basis of social life sets itself up for the acceptance of atheism as the lowest common denominator. These are simple truths that only one desirous of worshiping at the altar of the false gods of the American founding can ignore:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from life, from laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.

Pope Leo XIII further elaborated on the harm of the dangers of the pluralism extant in the American experience in his Apostolical Letter to James Cardinal Gibbons, Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899. Testem Benevolentiae was a prophetic warning not only to the American bishops. It was a warning to Catholics worldwide not to adapt the Faith to suit "modern times." Indeed, one can see in Pope Leo's remarks below a condemnation of the very spirit that produced the Second Vatican Council:

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, "the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father."-John i, I8. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: "Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world."-Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: "All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."-Const. de fide, Chapter iii.

Let it be far from anyone's mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

Far from being based in a "misunderstanding" of the writings of Father Isaac Thomas Hecker, Pope Leo XIII's Testem Benevolentiae was a prophetic explanation of the pernicious influences of the Americanist/Modernist cultural milieu upon the lives of ordinary Catholics. Pope Leo XIII understood that Catholics who lived in the framework of religious indifferentism and cultural pluralism would come to view the Church through the eyes of democracy and egalitarianism and what Pope Gregory XVI called the "insanity" of civil liberty while they would exalt the nationalist myths of the State into a virtual demigod beyond criticism. Yes, we are called to love our country. However, true love of one's country seeks her Catholicization in all things, as Pope Leo noted in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.

Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters, for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.

As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men." This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.

No one loves his country if he does not seek to Catholicize her in every aspect of her cultural life, including economics. Everything must be referred to Christ the King. Every one of our actions must be undertaken with a view to our Particular Judgments, mindful that the just social order depends upon the state of individual souls, which must have belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace to be well-ordered and thus disposed to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted solely to His true Church. A devotion to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, even a devotion to said Mass in all of its glorious fullness prior to the preconciliar changes wrought by Fathers Ferdinando Antonelli and Annibale Bugnini in the 1950s, is pointless if one does not mean to promote the fullness of the Catholic Faith, which means a steadfast desire to preach the Social Reign of Christ the King as absolutely necessary to the good of individual souls and to the right ordering of nations themselves.

Pope Pius XI, who as a young priest asked to see the Bishop of Mantua, Giuseppe Melchior Sarto, the future Pope Saint Pius X, condemned anyone who rejected the Social Teaching of the Church, which applies to all men and to all states, as a Modernist. Writing in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, Pope Pius XI noted:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.

The evil, pernicious heresy of Americanism is part and parcel of all of the evils of Modernism. Americanism prescinds from and flows into the religious indifferentism spawned by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of contemporary Judeo-Masonry, which wants the civil state to profess no religion and seeks to convince men that they can be good by their own devices, thus making Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of Freemasonry in Humanum Genus, 1884, as relevant to the United States and all of the Americas, which were infiltrated by Masonic ideals flowing from this country in order to undermine and thus to overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King in Latin America, as it was in Europe. How can anyone ignore the simple fact that the the Freemasonic war against the Church in Latin America at the beginning of the Nineteenth did not receive its inspiration from the spirit of the American and French Revolutions?

The heresies of the conciliarist novelty of ecumenism owe a great deal to the American belief that we can simply live in civil peace with people of different faiths as we attempt to pursue the common good without regard to "doctrinal differences." Oh, yes, the Potomac did indeed flow into the Tiber at the Second Vatican Council. The late Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., saw to that all right, using many of the American bishops as his mouthpieces to exalt the lies that went into Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, which was fought so vigorously by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the day of his dying breath, March 25, 1991. A belief in the Americanist concept, born of both Protestantism and Freemasonry, of the separation of Church and State flies in the face of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church and is thus incompatible with any claim to being part of Catholic Tradition.

Pope Saint Pius X, commenting on the Modernist view of Church-State relations, wrote about this quite directly in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.

Some will protest and say that it is impossible to restore Christendom, that it is neither possible or desirable to do so, placing them, once again, in total communion with Benedict XVI and conciliarism no matter their devotion to the Mass of Tradition and their self-assured statements that they are not in communion with the "new religion." Not possible? Limits can be placed on the efficacy graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross? Not possible? Hardly. Nothing is impossible with God--and Christendom will be restored when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest following the fulfillment of her Fatima Message. Not desirable? Why not? Can social order be produced  and maintained by the religious indifferentism of Protestantism and Freemasonry? The Catholic Church teaches, at least traditionally (which means perennially and without exception), that this--the belief that Protestantism and Freemasonry can contribute positively to social order--is impossible.

Pope Leo XIII noted this in A Review of His Pontificate, 1902:

So society in its foolhardy effort to escape from God has rejected the Divine order and Revelation; and it is thus withdrawn from the salutary efficacy of Christianity which is manifestly the most solid guarantee of order, the strongest bond of fraternity, and the inexhaustible source of all public and private virtue. This sacrilegious divorce has resulted in bringing about the trouble which now disturbs the world.  Hence it is the pale of the Church which this lost society must re-enter, if it wishes to recover its well-being, its repose, and its salvation.

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men.  It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption.  It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine Assistance and of that immortality which has been promised It, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect It in Its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the Teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal Itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of Justice and Charity, and the Propagator as well as the Guardian of True Liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the True Limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes  It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of Truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty.  Not does it infringe upon the rights of Justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity.

A devotion to Tradition is pointless if we do not embrace the totality of the Catholic Faith. The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ is a doctrine protected by the Ordinary Infallibility of the Catholic Church. No one may dissent from this doctrine and consider himself a faithful Catholic. Any traditional Catholic, no matter what "warring camp" into which he places himself, might as well go up and say to Papa Benedetto, "Yes, I agree with your 'healthy secularity'" if he thinks that any State, including the United States of America, can refuse rightly to recognize the true Faith as the foundation of personal and social order. Such a person falls into a category of Modernism condemned vigorously by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, quoted above.

Catholics, whether priests or members of the laity, who profess fealty to the American Constitution without realizing that they are in a true, perfect communion with conciliarism on religious liberty ought to consider the following questions:

1) Do Protestants have the civil right to proselytize their false religious beliefs? Catholicism says no. The American Constitution and conciliarism say yes.

2) Do Jews and Mohammedans and Buddhists and Hindus have the civil right to proselytize their false religious beliefs? Catholicism says no. The American Constitution and conciliarism say yes.

3) Do agnostics and atheists have the civil right to promote their false ideas in society? Catholicism says no. The American Constitution and conciliarism say yes.

4) Is it possible for large numbers of men in civil society to persevere in virtue without the assistance of Sanctifying Grace? The American Constitution is indifferent to this matter. Conciliarism is ambiguous on it.

5) It is possible for men to pursue the common good without adverting to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord entrusted solely to the Catholic Church? Catholicism says no. The Federalist, especially Numbers 10 and 51, says that men can pursue the common good as long as there are enough institutional safeguards to prevent the formation of a permanently established majority that could run roughshod over those who hold minority opinions on an issue under consideration in Congress. Conciliarism says that men of "good will" can work together in society for the common good. Benedict himself has made this a cornerstone of his approach to social questions, doing so in a particular way in Deus Caritas Est.

Pope Leo XIII summarized the absurdity that is at the foundation of all modern states, including the United States of America, and the collective suicide that is committed when the civil state is divorced from the Catholic Church. Pope Leo wrote in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue.

I have news for the apologists of the American constitutional system: Protestantism, no matter its various incarnations, is a heresy. That which is heretical cannot be the foundation of either personal or social order, can it? Or are the conciliarists--and their Freemasonic allies--right? Does it really make no difference at all if the civil state does not profess the true religion? Is it really possible for men not to know personal and social ruin when they are not guided by the true Faith, both personally and socially, and when large numbers of them do not have belief in, access to or cooperation with Sanctifying Grace? Are men able to redeem themselves and their nations without submitting themselves to the Deposit of Faith Christ the King has entrusted solely to the Catholic Church without any exception or deviation whatsoever? Is it possible for a written constitution not to become the plaything of positivists and judicial activists when its plain words admit of no higher authority, namely, the Catholic Church, to guarantee that they cannot be interpreted so as to justify violations of the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law? Is it not necessary for the civil state to help to foster those conditions in civil society to help its citizens live in this life so as to attain their Last End, namely, the possession of Heaven?

No one can disagree with this reiteration of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church and not be reminded of the terrible words of Pope Leo XIII contained in Satis Cognitum, applicable to all of those who recede in the least degree from any teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who does not believe that his nation must be Catholicized to her very core in all of her constituent elements is a dissenter from the Received Teaching of Our Lord. And a traditional Catholic who believes this makes a mockery of a claim to "oppose" the very conciliarism that he embraces, both theoretically and practically. Here are the plain words from Satis Cognitum:

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).

To point this out is to not to condemn anyone. It is, though, to illustrate the fact that the novelties of conciliarism did not occur overnight. Many American Catholics, and I was one of them for the first thirty-five years or so of my life, have fallen prey to the sweet allure of a culture that appeared to be benign to the Faith, in that it permitted Catholics, for the most part, to have their pious devotions and to participate in civil "discourse," while it was actually cancerously eating away at the sensus Catholicus, convincing Catholics that all was well with the life of the Church in this country as it was being undermined by the ethos of pluralism and religious indifferentism. The lion's share of Catholics in this country support various moral evils (abortion, contraception, sodomy, usury, materialism, positivism) precisely because they have been catechized by a prevailing cultural spirit informed by a cacophony of ideas and beliefs rather than being shaped by the spirit of the true Faith, whole and entire.

Our goal is not to "turn the clock" back to the bogus "golden era" of the 1950s and just have the Mass of Tradition. Our goal must be the restoration of the entirety of the Catholic Faith, including Christendom itself. This--and this alone--is true love, the true patria, of one's nation. Anything and everything else is mere sentimentality bordering on a violation of the First Commandment.

What I am asking for is a little bit of self-critical reflection on the part of those who continue to insist that the American Constitution is not inimical to the Catholic Faith. Americanism, a species of Modernism, did indeed influence Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes. How sad it is, therefore, that many well-meaning traditional Catholics, although eschewing the Novus Ordo Missae, embrace the Americanist spirit of civil governance, replete with its separation of Church and State, without realizing it is that spirit in large--although not exclusive--measure that made possible the Novus Ordo Missae itself, a Mass where the Feast of Christ the King is no longer focused on his Social Reign over men but on his eschatological kingship at the end of time.

May all traditional Catholics, relying upon the tender assistance of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, especially through her Most Holy Rosary and by being her consecrated slaves, come to realize that these words of Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, are meant to inspire us all in every age to work for the restoration of the Social Reign of her Divine Son, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, without any concession to the novelties of conciliarism or the Americanism that helped to spawn it:

We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint William the Abbot, pray for us.

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Blessed Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

Sister Lucia, pray for us.

The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.  

A Prayer in Honor of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

O most holy Heart of Jesus, fountain of every blessing, I adore Thee, I love Thee and with a lively sorrow for my sins, I offer Thee this poor heart of mine. Make me humble, patient, pure and wholly obedient to Thy will. Grant, good Jesus, that I may live in Thee and for Thee. Protect me in the midst of danger; comfort me in my afflictions; give me health of body, assistance in my temporal needs, Thy blessing on all that I do, and the grace of a holy death. Within Thy Heart I place my every care. In every need let me come to Thee with humble trust saying, Heart of Jesus help me. 

Merciful Jesus, I consecrate myself today and always to Thy Most Sacred Heart. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus I implore, that I may ever love Thee more and more. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, I trust in Thee.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! 

Sacred Heart of Jesus, I believe in Thy love for me. 

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine. 

Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy Kingdom Come. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, convert sinners, save the dying, deliver the Holy Souls in Purgatory. 





















© Copyright 2006, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.