Continuity Plus Discontinuity Equals Insanity
Thomas A. Droleskey
We live in a world of insanity wrought by many forces, including the naturalistic, humanistic elements of the Renaissance and the Revolution wrought by Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer and scores of others in the Sixteenth Century and thereafter against the Divine Plan that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ personally instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church. Illogic and the contradiction of the principle of non-contradiction are the order of the day, enshrined in the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational theater of the absurd that is the realm of civil governance and electoral politics and the Modernist theater of the absurd that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Statements are made that have no foundation in fact and defy all evidence demonstrating their falsity. These statements are to believed simply because they have been asserted as being true, which is what we call positivism.
Although the illogic and contradiction inherent in conciliarism have been explored on this site extensively in the past few years, even before I acknowledged publicly at around this time last year that the conciliarists have defected from the Faith and cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately, the events that have transpired since the release of Summorum Pontificum have been beyond human comprehension. Staggering assaults against truth and logic have been launched by all manner of people to claim that this three-year experiment, which is designed to accustom more and more traditionally-minded Catholics into accepting the "gradual" incorporation of elements from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service into the putative "offerings" of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, represents a great step forward in defense of the Catholic Faith, as well as demonstrating Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's commitment to the cause of Tradition.
One must suspend all rationality to ignore the evidence of Joseph Ratzinger's Modernism, which is founded in his utter rejection of the Catholic Church's official philosophy, Scholasticism, and his embrace of the Hegelianism of his late mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, a man who believed that truth could contradict itself. Ratzinger stated clearly in 1990 that past popes were wrong, that their pronouncements on such matters as religious liberty, while valid at the time, have become obsolete in light of the changing circumstances of "modern" man. Truth, according to Ratzinger, is only perceived in the mind, which is incapable of grasping it perfectly at any one time, giving rise to multiple interpretations, if not outright contradictions, over the course of time. This is sheer madness on the level of natural reasoning, leading to the denial of the very nature of dogmatic truth itself. Although conciliarists, being Modernists, are most clever and couch their remarks in ambiguity and complexity and obscurity in many, although not all instances, they really do believe that the Catholic Church has been wrong about certain matters in the past and that there is a need at present to "correct" past mistakes.
Ratzinger himself called the Second Vatican Council a "countersyllabus" of errors," meaning that Pope Pius IX had it all wrong when he approved the Syllabus of Errors in 1864. This is from Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology:
If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty, and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism the twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward a liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution and was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone will deny today that the Spanish and Italian Concordat strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone will deny today that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Only a careful investigation of the different ways in which acceptance of the new era was accomplished in various parts of the Church could unravel the complicated network of causes that formed the background of the "Pastoral Constitution". and only thus can the dramatic history of its influence be brought to light.
Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)
Ratzinger, who told German television interviewers in 2006 that
"in everything that is essential I have remained identical,"
amplified this point eight years after the initial German publication of Principles of Catholic Theology:
The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment. (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)
Catholics do not speak about "the details of the determinations" of past Papal pronouncements becoming obsolete. Modernists do, however. Joseph Ratzinger's views expressed in 1990 are the quintessence of Modernism. He says that he has not changed. He is, therefore, a Modernist to the core of this being, accepting the Modernist warfare against truth that is condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
So, too, the philosopher regards it as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has likewise affirmed that the object of faith is God in himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. These errors are truly of the gravest kind and the pernicious character of both will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer does not lay too much stress on the formula, as formula, but avail himself of it only for the purpose of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavors to express but without ever succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer make use of the formulas only in as far as they are helpful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness until such time as the same magisterium shall provide otherwise.
Only someone who is intellectually dishonest can contend that this passage does not apply directly, completely and wholly to the views expressed by Joseph Ratzinger in 1990--and that he has held throughout his priesthood--concerning the nature of dogmatic truth. Summorum Pontificum has not changed the reality of who Joseph Ratzinger is and the condemned manner in which he views Catholic dogma. Condemned? Yes. Condemned, as in anathematized. Some of those now cheering Summorum Pontificum used to recognize--and admit quite publicly--that the following declaration of the [First] Vatican Council demonstrated that Ratzinger is at odds with the Catholic Faith in his Modernist conceptions of dogma and how it is possible for the "truth" to be expressed "differently" than it has been in the past:
Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Nothing about the reality of who Joseph Ratzinger is and what an enemy of souls he has been throughout his priesthood in that he does not believe that the Catholic Church has a mission from her Divine Bridegroom to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all men and of all nations to the Catholic Church changed one little bit simply because he emerged from the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, to take his place in the line of conciliar antipopes. Indeed, Ratzinger himself has reaffirmed his belief in the evolution of dogma, doing so in his now infamous December 22, 2005, address to the members of the conciliar curia working in the Vatican:
It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding. . . .
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
There are some who contend that sedevacantists "hate the Church" in the same kind of manner as evangelical and/or fundamental Protestants. Sedevacantists love Holy Mother Church. They dissent from nothing contained in the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. They do not disparage the words and actions of past popes and the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church's twenty general councils by resorting to Hegelian devices of illogic and contradiction and the purely Modernist devices of obscurity and ambiguity. Sedevacantists are condemned by many of their fellow Catholics for pointing out the simple, inescapable truth that a statement such as made by Joseph Ratzinger on December 22, 2005, cannot be reconciled to Pope Saint Pius X's specific condemnation in Pascendi of such a statement:
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] 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 religion.
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."
"Continuity in discontinuity"? No true Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church has even spoken in such Orwellian doublespeak. "Innovation in continuity"? The Catholic Church has consistently condemned innovation and innovators. Pope Saint Pius X did so in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.
Innovators are not friends of the Catholic Faith. Pope Gregory XVI made this abundantly clear in Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth.
Pope Saint Pius X explained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis the Modernist proclivity for twisting the truth and for even contradicting their own theories on occasion while appearing to pious and devout to the faithful:
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.
Pope Saint Pius X also pointed out that some Modernists show a particular regard for the liturgical worship of the Church while others desire those ceremonies to be reformed
Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.
Once again, this describes Joseph Ratzinger to a tee. He is more indulgent of liturgical symbolism than many of his fellow Modernists, although for purely historical reasons, couched in the context of "liturgical pluralism," and not for any dogmatic deficiencies inherent in the Novus Ordo Missae. One sees this approach of Ratzinger, part of which was incorporated into Summorum Pontificum (while part of it was not), in a retrospective of his life called Milestones:
The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is much different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical "reforms." It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most incisive manifestation in the changes of the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.
In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum--the missal of the city of Rome--was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences cold only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impress had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. From this it follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makes, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own produce but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the continuity of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ, are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds--partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs: 1927-1977, published in English by Ignatius Press, 1998. pp. 146-149.)
There are, to coin a phrase, "elements of truth," along with distortions (including the claim that successors of Pope Saint Pius V "reworked" the Missale Romanum he issued in 1570), in these three paragraphs. Ratzinger's description as to why Pope Pius V sought to impose the Missale Romanum upon the entirety of the Roman Rite is entirely accurate. Pope Saint Pius V did indeed seek to protect the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church from any local usage that might have been the result of the influences of John Hus and John Wycliff and Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer, et al. Ratzinger also is quite correct in pointing out that the old canard of James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead concerning the work of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI in constructing the Novus Ordo Missae as having been of the same nature of what Pope Saint Pius V did after the Council Trent has no foundation in fact whatsoever. Traditional Catholics have been making this point for forty years, only to be denounced by "conservatives" such as Likoudis and Whitehead and others in Catholics United for the Faith and Opus Dei.
Ratzinger does, however, demonstrate in these three paragraphs that he is committed to the necessity of some sort of liturgical "reform" based on the "real heritage" of the "Second" Vatican Council. He was a progenitor of the "Second" Vatican Council. It is essential to him, therefore, to insist that the "Second" Vatican Council does not represent a "breach" in the life of the Church but a "stage of development," as he explained in his December 22, 2005, curia address noted earlier in this article. His sympathies for the "older" forms of the liturgy have nothing to do with doctrine but with a desire to demonstrate that there has been no breach between the past and the present, which is to be seen in terms of "continuity in discontinuity."
Typical of Ratzinger, however, there are contradictions within these three paragraphs--and with the assertions made in his own accompanying letter to the world's conciliar "bishops" upon the release of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007. Ratzinger explained in his accompanying letter to the world's conciliar bishops that the "earlier" Missal was never juridically abrogated and was, at least in principle, always permitted:
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level
Admitting that the phrase "juridically abrogated" is a quite specific term that aims to demonstrate that the 1962 Missal issued by Angelo Roncalli was always, at least technically, permitted, the tone of Ratzinger's discussion in Milestones is decidedly different from that in the accompanying letter to the conciliar "bishops" (the actual facts of the matter are discussed by Father Anthony Cekada in
Did Paul VI 'Illegally Promulgate' the Novus Ordo?):
The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal.
Once again, "juridically abrogated" and "total prohibition" are two entirely different terms. The distinction between them is also moot when one considers that Giovanni Montini was an apostate who thus lacked any juridical authority to do anything in the Catholic Church.
That have been noted, however, it is interesting, however, that Ratzinger gave the impression in his accompanying letter that the failure of local "bishops" to respect the "earlier" Missal was not the result of the "almost total prohibition" that he himself had written about in his own memoirs! And from whence did this "almost total prohibition" emanate? From Minnie Mouse? (Still can't get over that monstrous scene of the woman tattooed with an image of Minnie Mouse on her back! Thank you, civil liberty!) No, from Giovanni Montini,/Paul VI. Montini, while permitting older priests to continue using the 1962 Missal (or the Missal of their religious communities that actually pre-dated the 1962 Missal), was very much opposed, both on a de jure and de facto basis, to the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Indeed, the very fear attributed by Ratzinger to the conciliar "bishops" that "permission" for the 1962 Missal, frequently (and quite mistakenly) referred to as the Missal of Saint Pius V, would be opposed to the very spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council was expressed by Montini himself to his friend Jean Guitton after he, Montini, had met with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, in 1976:
But what could the decision of Paul possibly be [about permitting Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's request for the continued offerings of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition]? Two days earlier Jean Guitton had suggested to allow the Mass of St. Pius V in France. Pope Paul had replied: "That? Never!. . . That Mass of St. Pius V like the one sees at Econe has become the symbol for the condemnation of the Council. I will in no wise accept the Council being condemned by a symbol. If an exception were made, the whole Council would be questioned, and consequently the Apostolic authority of the Council." (Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, 2004, p. 493.)
This is why it is important for Joseph Ratzinger to contend in his accompanying letter to the conciliar "bishops" upon the release of Summorum Pontificum that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the "two forms of the one Roman Rite." He wants to there to be "peace" in the conciliar structures for the sake of liturgical pluralism and in order to cajole traditionally-minded Catholics into accepting the "Second" Vatican Council and most of its aftermath once and for all. Once again, this is what Ratzinger wrote in his accompanying letter to the conciliar "bishops" about the connection between the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Novus Ordo Missae:
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
No rupture? Benedict XVI, meet Joseph Ratzinger, who wrote the following in Milestones:
The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impress had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision.
There you have it, as a former colleague of mine was wont to say. Ratzinger wrote in Milestones of a "breach" and that the "old building was demolished" while contending in his letter to the conciliar "bishops" accompanying Summorum Pontificum that there had been "no rupture." Quite an amazing contradiction to behold, one that is, of course pretty standard for the Modernist mind.
What is consistent between Milestones and the accompanying letter to the conciliar "bishops" upon the release of Summorum Pontificum is an absolute commitment to the "necessity" of the liturgical "reform" called for by the "Second" Vatican Council and a complete rejection of any assertion, such as those made by the late Cardinals Alfred Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci (The Ottaviani Intervention) and the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer (BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER'S LETTER TO PAUL VI REGARDING THE PROMULGATION OF THE NOVUS ORDO), calling into question the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae. For Ratzinger, you see, the matter of the liturgy is one of history and context, the rupture of which he wrote in Milestones is one with history and context, not with the very ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
As a firm defender of the such erroneous propositions as "religious liberty," the "separation of Church and State," the new ecclesiology, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, episcopal collegiality and the great sacrilege known as the Novus Ordo Missae, Joseph Ratzinger is attempting to convince his fellow conciliarists that the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is no threat to the "legacy" of the "Second" Vatican Council, hoping at the same time to satisfy the liturgical "desires" of traditionally-minded Catholics and to eradicate, if only gradually over the course of time, any talk from these traditionally-minded Catholics that a devotion to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is linked to a defense of the Catholic Faith that has been under attack by conciliarism and undermined by the Novus Ordo Missae.
Thus it will be that many, although not all, traditionally-minded Catholics in the counterfeit church of conciliarism find themselves in utter insanity of abiding by heresies and a disunion of minds that express themselves in various and cacophonous ways (Focolare, Cursillo, Opus Dei, Legionaries of Christ, Communion and Liberation, "Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, among so many others). Many, although not all, have been rendered blind, deaf and dumb as Ratzinger continues to offend the very majesty of God Himself by calling a mountain upon which false worship is offered by Buddhists as "sacred." Others have actually justified Ratzinger's going into the mosque in Turkey ten months ago as he took off his shoes, assumed a Mohammedan prayer position and turned in the direction of Mecca. The saints we commemorate today, September 27,2007, Saints Cosmas and Damian, gave up their lives rather than even appear to give any kind of worship or credence to false "gods." In the ethos of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, however, no amount of apostasy and sacrilege and defiance of anathematized propositions (some of which Ratzinger swore to uphold when he took the Oath Against Modernism) means anything.
Banished, you see, from the minds of most Catholics in the conciliar structures are these simple words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that state very firmly that one must adhere to everything taught by the Catholic Church without any iota of dissent.
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).
The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).
Pope Pius XII elaborated on this point in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
A belief in a spirit of "continuity in discontinuity" is indicative of a loss of the Catholic Faith, not a defense thereof. One either sees this or he does not. One must believe everything taught by the Catholic Church in exactly the same way as it has been taught and handed down to us over the centuries. There is no such thing as novelty or innovation in the Catholic Church. Innovators and progenitors of novelties do not have the sensus Catholicus. The are Modernists.
The goal of Modernism is to produce the One World Ecumenical Church, if not in a de jure manner then certainly in a de facto manner. World Youth Day is a perfect example of a large conglomeration of people who believe in different things about God and what He has revealed to man through His Catholic Church. Then again, one's local conciliar parish contains that same kind of conglomeration (pro-aborts, practicing perverts, supporters of arbortifacient contraceptives and other methods of denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of the marriage and its fecundity, pantheists, blasphemers, naturalists of the "left" and of the "right" and everything in between, New Age aficionados). Such a conglomeration is not of God. It does not represent the Catholic Church. It is merely a quasi-Catholic replication of the confusion and disarray that passes for the "worldwide Anglican Communion."
To avoid giving offense to God by participating in the insanity represented by conciliarism and its contradictions of the nature of revealed truth we must cling as never before to the true bishops and true priests in the catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to its false shepherds. Yes, this will earn us the scorn of most of our friends and acquaintances. How many people during the Arian heresy thought that they were maintaining the true faith with Arian bishops rather than by following the likes of Saints Basil or Athanasius? How many people during the Albigenses heresy thought that they were maintaining the true faith by following the Albigenses bishops and priests rather than converting at the word of Saint Dominic de Guzman? How many people during the Protestant Revolt in England believed that they were maintaining the true faith under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I rather than fleeing to the underground to hear Holy Mass offered by priests who had remained truly faithful to the patrimony of the Catholic Church?
We must not be concerned about numbers. We must be concerned about truth. The Catholic Faith never produces ambiguity or uncertainty. The Catholic Faith, which comes from God, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, produces clarity and certainty.
Saints Cosmas and Damian healed bodies in light of the good of souls. May their intercession from Heaven help us to be healed of all contamination with the falsehood of conciliarism and its evil ways that have done so much to pollute souls, including most of our own (if we are honest with ourselves), with the spirit of Modernity, which opposes the Social Reign of Christ the King in the world, and the spirit of Modernism, which opposes the immutable nature of truth and thus of God, Who is the Author of all truth.
Our Lady will indeed ransom us from these wicked days. We must keep vigil with her at the tomb of her Divine Son as He has suffered a mystical death and burial at the hands of those who have spat upon the teachings of true popes and sought an evil accommodation to the spirit of this age. May our tender devotion to her through her Most Holy Rosary--and by our total consecration to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart--help us to recognize that no one who disagrees with these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in
Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, is a member of the Catholic Church in good standing and that we must cleave to true bishops and true bishops who recognize these words apply to Joseph Ratzinger and his fellow band of insane revolutionaries:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.
Perhaps it would be good to remember how much Our Lady herself hates heresy. Saint Louis de Montfort wrote about the scene that transpired when Our Lady gave Saint Dominic his "marching orders" to oppose heresy with her Psalter, that is, the Rosary:
"Dear Dominic, do you know which weapon the Blessed Trinity wants to use to reform the world?"
"Oh, my Lady," answered Saint Dominic, "you know far better than I do because next to your Son Jesus Christ you have always been the chief instrument of our salvation."
Then Our Lady replied:
"I want you to know that, in this kind of warfare, the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter which is the foundation stone of the New Testament. Therefore if you want to reach these hardened souls and win them over to God, preach my Psalter."
So he arose, comforted, and burning with zeal for the conversion of the people in that district he made straight for the Cathedral. At once unseen angels rang the bells to gather the people together and Saint Dominic began to preach.
At the very beginning of his sermon an appalling storm broke out, the earth shook, the sun was darkened, and there was so much thunder and lightning that all were very much afraid. Even greater was their fear when looking at a picture of Our Lady exposed in a prominent place they saw her raise her arms to heaven three times to call down God's vengeance upon them if they failed to be converted, to amend their lives, and seek the protection of the Holy Mother of God.
God wishes, by means of these supernatural phenomena, to spread the new devotion of the Holy Rosary and to make it more widely known.
At last, at the prayer of Saint Dominic, the storm came to an end, and he went on preaching. So fervently and compellingly did he explain the importance and value of the Holy Rosary that almost all the people of Toulouse embraced it and renounced their false beliefs. In a very short time a great improvement was seen in the town; people began leading Christian lives and gave up their former bad habits. (Saint Louis de Montfort, The Secret of The Rosary, Bay Shore, New York: Montfort Publications, 1984 reprinting, pp. 18-19.)
Pray the Rosary daily. It is the most powerful weapon, after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to reform ourselves and the world, to defend the Faith by opposing heresy and seeking to convert the heretics. Our Lady will vanquish the foes of her Divine Son in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and her victory, that of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will be glorious beyond all telling.
Our Lady of Ransom, ransom us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Maria Regina Immaculata!
Omnia instaurare in Christo.
Our Lady of Ransom, pray for us!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths. Amen.
All to you, Blessed Mother. All to your Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you. Save souls!
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, 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.
Pope Saint Linus, pray for us.
Saint Peter Nolasco, pray for us.
Saint Raymond Pennafort, pray for us.
Saint Raymond Nonnatus, pray for us.
Saint Thecla, pray for us.
Saint Matthew, pray for us.
Saint Eustachius and Family, pray for us.
Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, pray for us.
Saint Joseph Cupertino, pray for us.
Saint Januarius, pray for us.
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, pray for us.
Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.
Saint Giles, pray for us.
Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.
Saint Rose of Lima, pray for us.
Saint Nicomedes, pray for us.
Saint Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.
Pope Saint Zephyrinus, pray for us.
Saint Louis IX, King of France, pray for us.
Saint Jane Frances de Chantal, pray for us.
Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.
Saint Philip Benizi, pray for us.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.
Saint John Eudes, pray for us.
Saint Hyacinth, pray for us, pray for us.
Saint Agapitus, pray for us.
Saint Helena, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.
Saint Athanasius, pray for us.
Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.
Saints Monica, pray for us.
Saint Jude, pray for us.
Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.
Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.
Saint John Bosco, pray for us.
Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.
Saint Scholastica, pray for us.
Saint Benedict, pray for us.
Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.
Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.
Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.
Saint Augustine, pray for us.
Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.
Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.
Saint Turibius, pray for us.
Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.
Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.
Saint Lucy, pray for us.
Saint Monica, pray for us.
Saint Agatha, pray for us.
Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.
Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.
Saint Philomena, pray for us.
Saint Cecilia, pray for us.
Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
Saint Athanasius, pray for us.
Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.
Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.
Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.
Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.
Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.
Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.
Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.
Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.
Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.
Saint Lucy, pray for us.
Saint Dominic, pray for us.
Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.
Saint Basil, pray for us.
Saint Benedict, pray for us.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
Saint Sebastian, pray for us.
Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.
Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.
Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.
Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.
Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.
Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.
Saint Genevieve, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.
Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.
Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.
Blessed Humbeline, pray for us.
Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.
Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.
Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.
Francisco Marto, pray for us.
Jacinta Marto, pray for us.
Juan Diego, pray for us.
Father Maximilian Kolbe,M.I., pray for us.
Father Frederick Faber, 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.