Thomas A. Droleskey
The work of the false religion of conciliarism, which is the ape of Catholicism even though it is accepted in the true Faith's place with great satisfaction by most Catholics around the world, is all about destruction. Every aspect of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals had to be destroyed by the conciliar revolutionaries in order to erect a new edifice, a "great facade," if you will, to replace the Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.
The now retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is making a semi-public appearance soon to stage the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service for the annual meeting of his former students whose minds he polluted with his "new theology," told us thirty-one years ago, writing as a loyal student of his Hegelian mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, that the "demolition of the bastions" was long overdue in order to destroy the remaining vestiges of the "Catholic ghetto" that kept Catholics clinging to the theology, philosophy and the liturgy of the past:
Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It
means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even
begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was
not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear
precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was
identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an
attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the
text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its
development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not,
therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That
means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have
marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly
conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long
run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of
the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as
early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p, 391.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was a personal mission of theological, philosophical and liturgical destruction throughout the course of his priesthood, starting with his absolute hatred for the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, Scholasticism, whose chief exponent in the Thirteenth Century was Saint Thomas Aquinas, who possessed the sort of "crystal clear logic" that did not appear to the German master of complexity, paradox, ambiguity and contradiction. It was necessary for young Father Joseph Ratzinger to tear down and to destroy the "bastion" of Scholasticism in order to replace it with his "new theology's" repackaging of Modernism's "evolution of dogma," something he termed during his antipapal tenure as the "hermeneutic of continuity."
No matter it is called by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition" or Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" these days, the Modernist proposition of the "evolution of dogma," itself a concession to biological evolutionism that had been advanced by Charles Darwin, was used to attack every aspect of Catholic doctrine, worship and pastoral praxis.
The overthrow and destruction of the "obstacle" presented by Scholasticism was the means by which the conciliar revolutionaries, led in large measure at the "Second" Vatican Council by the likes of Father Joseph Ratzinger, have been able to manufacture an entirely new ecclesiology that can be used to "reconcile" that they think is the Catholic Church to the Protestants and the Orthodox. It has also been the means by which a "new relationship" has been made possible with "the faith of Israel" and, of course, by which the conciliarists have "reconciled" themselves to the principles of Modernity that have given us civil leaders in the mode of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.
Ratzinger/Benedict's successor has been on what is nothing other than an obsessive campaign to denounce anyone deemed to be "traditionally-minded," in other words, those Catholics in the conciliar structures whose sensus fidei has not been destroyed entirely as of yet.
Bergoglio/Francis has disparaged traditionally-minded Catholics as "hard-headed" or stubborn (see Francis And The Commissars),
Bergoglio/Francis has disparaged traditionally-minded Catholics as the modern-day equivalent of Pharisees (see "You, Sir, Are A Pharisee!").
Bergoglio/Francis has used his now suspended, well, at least until September, daily blab and gab sessions at the Casa Santa Marta, which are "unofficial," of course (see Francis At The Improv), as a Ding Dong School Of Apostasy to explain conciliarism to dummies such as us.
Bergoglio/Francis has rather consistently taken to comparing those pathetic creatures he disparages as
"restorationists" to "ultra-progressive" revolutionaries who deny the
Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the
Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary by the
power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation.
This is very interesting when one
considers the simple fact that he, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, mocks the meaning
of Our Lord's Incarnation by seeking to redefine and reinterpret almost
every single article of the Catholic Faith to suit his own revolutionary
schemes that fall with the "accepted" norms of "mainstream" conciliar
thought and pastoral praxis.
Remember, Bergoglio/Francis has
told us that his training in liturgical matters was an "emancipated"
one in contrast to the "rigidity" of those Pharisaical strawmen known as
traditionalists that he loves to disparage and knock down on a regular
basis (see Francis The Liturgist).
Our true popes have warned us about destroyers such as the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who is in perfect continuity with his predecessors in his path of doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral destruction. Pope Pius VIII did so in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliati Nostrae, May 24, 1829:
3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due
to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no
longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic
faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion
through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty
fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See
is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority
of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away
and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine
offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner. All
things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the
superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We
say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly
the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations." (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliati Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)
Pope Saint Pius X explained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, that Modernism's belief in evolution of dogma leads inevitably to the destruction of all religion:
12. We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's
system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of
dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are
necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear
knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold,
strictly consists in the secondary formulas .
To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which
exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be
readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose
than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his
faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith;
in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object,
and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the
truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so
must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as
instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be
adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the
religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite
variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like
manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently,
the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are,
therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of
dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all
13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is
strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles.
For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce
from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they
are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be
living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood
to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be
invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than
their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with
some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other
words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by
the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the
.secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes
that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain,
adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this
adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly
need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic
formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so
lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for
anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with
consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true
path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas
and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless
formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and
"leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have
reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth
and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are
seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking
not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and
apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines,
unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think
they can base and maintain truth itself." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
As has been much discussed on this site, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service has been the chief instrument by which Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have had their sensus fidei destroyed in order to convince them that doctrine can change as rapidly and incessantly as the Sacred Liturgy. The Novus Ordo was meant to be an instrument of destruction from its very inception, something that its chief architects boasted was their very goal:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from
the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling
block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants. (Annibale
Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the
bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local
tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture,
decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol
Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite.
This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided
me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the
quote is found.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to
what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in
such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy....
[T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at
least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in
the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic
Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos,
#17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a
close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations
are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we
have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph
Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, quoted and
footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the
Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
The late German liturgist, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, spoke only about the destruction of the Roman Rite, something that he believed was lamentable and detestable:
Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a
change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a
rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the
assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other
of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not
constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations
introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the
traditional liturgical forms intact . . .
At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman
rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the
Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite
was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the
centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and
again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always
remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .
Was all this really done because of a pastoral
concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a
radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of
traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the
"Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new
spirit moving through the Church?
Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone
that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same
time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a
dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the
traditional rite was granted only to older priests.
Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new
liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as
well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the
Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the
pastoral needs of the faithful.
Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That
is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the
bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply
could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was
permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms
of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites,
prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from
Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not
square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to
a God who judges and punishes.
At the same time, the priests and the faithful
are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council
is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the
Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced
involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few
duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular
Most priests accepted these assurances
about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new
rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted
the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the
past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the
liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.
Following this strategy, the groups pushing for
reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the
sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of
the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves
refused to obey. . . .
The real destruction of the traditional
Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one
thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it
was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our
courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of
countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able
to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)
Yes, the destruction of the Roman Rite was made to lead to the "wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was created," and only the willfully blind can at this late date deny that this destruction has taken place.
Alas, nothing in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is secure.
Much like its close relative in the pantheon of false religions, Protestantism, even the counterfeit church of conciliarism's liturgical rites are in an almost constant state of flux, something that was noted in G.I.R.M. Warfare, which, yes, I do intend to revise and update turning Conversion in Reverse into a print format and continuing te work on volume two.
The latest element of the conciliarism's liturgical rites to be changed is its rite of baptism, which underwent a slight alteration by none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on January 28, 2013:
VATICAN CITY, August 22, 2013 – The Sunday after the Epiphany is the Sunday of the baptism of Jesus. And on each of these Sundays, year after year, Benedict XVI administered the first sacrament of Christian initiation to a certain number of children, in the Sistine Chapel.
Each time, therefore, he had occasion to pronounce the formulas supplied by the rite of baptism in effect since 1969. But two of the words in this rite never entirely convinced him.
And so, before renouncing the chair of Peter, he ordered that they should be changed in the original Latin, and as a result in the modern languages as well.
The provision, which was worked up by the congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments, was published in the official bulletin of the dicastery, “Notitiae." Its existence was pointed out, amid the silence of the Vatican media, by the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, “Avvenire."
The decree that introduces the innovation, published in Latin, begins as follows:
"The gate of life and of the kingdom, baptism is a sacrament of faith, by which men are incorporated into the one Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”
It is precisely on the basis of this consideration that the congregation for divine worship and discipline of the sacraments justified the variation in the second Latin “editio typica" of the 1973 rite for the baptism of children (which in the formula in question is identical to the first “editio typica" of 1969):
"So that in this same rite more light may be shed on the doctrinal teaching of the task and duty of Mother Church in the sacraments to be celebrated.”
The variation introduced is the following.
From now on, at the end of the rite of reception, before signing with the cross the forehead of the child or of the children, the priest will no longer say: "Magno gaudio communitas christiana te (vos) excipit," but instead: "Magno gaudio Ecclesia Dei te (vos) excipit".
In practice pope Joseph Ratzinger, as a sophisticated theologian, wanted that in the baptismal rite it should be clearly said that it is the Church of God - which subsists fully in the Catholic Church - that receives those who are being baptized, and not generically the “Christian community,” a term that also signifies the individual local communities or non-Catholic confessions, like the Protestants.
The decree published in “Notitiae" specifies that Benedict XVI “benevolently established” the aforementioned variation in the course of an audience granted to the prefect of the congregation, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, on January 28, 2013, just two weeks before the announcement of his resignation as pope.
The decree bears the date of February 22, 2013, the feast of the chair of St. Peter, and is signed by the cardinal prefect and by the secretary, Archbishop Arthur Roche. And it is said there that it went into effect on March 31, 2013, already under the reign of Pope was Francis, who evidently had nothing to object with regard to the decision of his predecessor.
The introduction of the variation in the modern languages will be overseen by the respective episcopal conferences.
Currently in English the phrase in which the two words “Christian community” must be changed to “Church of God” is: "The Christian community welcomes you with great joy". (Antipope Benedict's Parting Shot.)
To the end of his days as "Pope" Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger was still attempting to cement his "new ecclesiology," based as it is one the word "subsist" that he, acting upon a recommendation by a German Lutheran "observer" at the "Second" Vatican Council, suggested should be placed into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, in order to give formal recognition to the "elements" of "sanctification" that exist the "ecclesial" (Protestant) "communities" and in the Orthodox churches.
One can see, however, that then then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger had great difficulty attempting even as late as 2000, following the issuance of Dominus Iesus, August 6, 2000, to explain the contradiction between the teaching of the Catholic Church from time immemorial and the text of Lumen Gentium. Here is an excerpt from an interview he gave to the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung on September 22, 2000, that was later translated into Italian and published in L'Ossevatore Romano:
Q. Perhaps the Christian actually has the freedom to interpret this "patchwork" also as subjectivism or individualism.
A. The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, is convinced that a definition of this kind is irreconcilable with Christ's promise and with fidelity to him. Christ's Church truly exists and not in pieces. She is not an unattainable utopia but a concrete reality. The "subsistit" means precisely this: the Lord guarantees the Church's existence despite all our errors and sins, which certainly are also clearly found in her. With "subsistit", the intention was to say that, although the Lord keeps his promise, there is also an ecclesial reality outside the Catholic community, and it is precisely this contradiction which is the strongest incentive to pursue unity. If the Council had merely wished to say that the Church of Jesus Christ is also in the Catholic Church, it would have said something banal. The Council would have clearly contradicted the entire history of the Church's faith, which no Council Father had in mind. (Answers to main objections against Dominus Iesus.)
This is heretical.
There are no "errors" within the Catholic Church. She is the spotless, virginal Mystical Spouse of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Although her children are sinners, she herself is incapable of sin. Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger blasphemed Holy Mother Church as he denied her very Divine Constitution.
Furthermore, "unity" is not "pursued" as it exists within the Catholic Church, and thus it is that individual non-Catholic Christians must be converted to the true Faith in order to belong to the one and only Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church and none other:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church
who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been
so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or
been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
"For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one
Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in
the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one
Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And
therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered -
so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that
those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the
unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine
Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Try as Ratzinger did in his interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung thirteen years ago to square Lumen Gentium with Mystici Corporis, the plain truth is that the two are absolutely irreconcilable.
Then again, this is all much ado about nothing as the conciliar rite of baptism is radically different than the rite used by the Catholic Church save for the words of baptism itself. The conciliar rite of baptism, like everything else to do with the synthetic conciliar faith, is "simplified" to the point that the powerful exorcism prayers contained in the authentic Roman Ritual have been reduced to a pathetically limp one.
A very useful, detailed comparison of the two rites can be found at Latin Baptism vs. New Rite of Baptism. Here is a brief excerpt from the comparison's conclusion:
Again there is only one exorcism in the new rite and it only talks about
“your only Son… to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, rescue
man from the kingdom of darkness”. But there is no direct talking to
the devil to be gone, it is just talking about Jesus and his casting out
Satan. Thank God we still have the option to have babies baptized in
the Old Rite if we can find a priest who knows how and is willing. (Latin Baptism vs. New Rite of Baptism.)
Everything is always in flux in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as it is in league with the adversary, which is why its rite of exorcism is useless against the devil, who has inspired conciliarism and designed its weapons of mass spiritual destruction, which continues unabated and will be discussed as briefly in part two of this commentary tomorrow as it has been in part one.
Our days are short.
Perhaps President George Walker Bush's--I mean, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro's, sorry, decision to "go it alone" in Syria will provoke the Russians, although this is still as yet to be seen. The Russian Federation is, though, moving two warships into the Mediterranean Sea, and I don't think that they are being sent there to be present at Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's next Wednesday "general audience" address.
We do not
know the day or the hour of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour's Coming for
us at the end of our lives. To prepare for this terrible moment of our
Particular Judgments is never easy. It is even more difficult in these
days of apostasy and betrayal, which is why we must be enough enough to flee from
the false church of conciliarism no matter what kind of humiliation and castigation comes our way as a result.
And those who are able to have access to the daily offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition
offered by true bishops and true priests must be grateful for having a refuge from a world of
insanity that flows from the abomination of desolation that is the Novus Ordo and the paradoxes and contradictions contained within the conciliar
ethos that gave birth to it and is communicated by it even as the false "pope" defends it as a "liturgical renewal" to the very end of his reign of terror against God and man.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ gave us His Most Blessed Mother to be our Mother as she stood so
valiantly by the foot of His Most Holy Cross as He shed every single
drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us. He has instructed her to
give Saint Simon Stock the Brown Scapular and to give Saint Dominic de Guzman her Most Holy Rosary and to give
Saint Catherine Laboure the Miraculous Medal. He has let His Most
Blessed Mother teach us through her apparition to Juan Diego that He
wants the entirety of the Americas converted to His Social Kingship as
she is honored publicly by men and their nations, and He has warned us
through her apparition at La Salette in France of impending doom in the
Church and the world as a result of the sins of men. And He has told His
Most Blessed Mother to console us with her Fatima Message, which is why
we really should be earnest in praying as many Rosaries each day as our
Every Ave Maria we pray helps us to
prepare for the hour of our deaths as we seek to repair the damage
caused by our sins and those of the whole world. May we be generous in
praying our Rosaries as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary,
remembering, a true Charity demands, to pray fervently for the
conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries before they die. We must
never be unbent in our sins and we must never be unaware of how we must
give God the honor and glory that are His due as members of the Catholic
Church who have fled to the catacombs in this time of apostasy and betrayal, far, far away from conciliarism and its weapons of mass spiritual destruction.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
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, especially on your feast day today!
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Rose of Lima, T.O.P., pray for us.
Saints Felix and Adauctus, pray for us.