by Thomas A. Droleskey
This will be one of the shortest articles ever published on this site.
What else can be said about the following news story found in the Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 8 JUL 2008 (VIS) - Given below is the text of a communique released late this morning by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, concerning recent events within the Anglican Communion.
"We have regretfully learned the news of the Church of England vote that paves the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the episcopacy.
"The Catholic position on the issue has been clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a break with the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium and is, therefore, a further obstacle to reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
"This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now borne fruit, as Cardinal Kasper clearly explained when on 5 June 2006 he spoke to all of the bishops of the Church of England at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
"The Cardinal has been invited once again to express the Catholic position at the next Lambeth Conference at the end of July".
(COMMUNIQUE ON RESULTS OF A VOTE IN ANGLICAN CHURCH.)
Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh.
Why all the "duhs," you ask? Well, after all, "duh" is the only kind of response that a native New Yorker gives when faced with such a statement so redolent of factual inaccuracy that any other reaction is to belabor a point (now that's something you can't accuse me of, right?)
The communique issued by the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity accepts the "Church of England" as a legitimate ecclesiastical body that is a "partner in dialogue" with the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The communique issued by the "Pontifical" Council for Christian Unity gives every impression that the "Church of England" has an episcopacy to which any man, no less a woman, can be "ordained." Anglican clergymen of any "rank" are simply engaging in a gigantic "costume party" as they simulate liturgical rites, making them wonderful partners in "dialogue" with their conciliar cousins.
The Anglicans have no authority to ordain anyone to anything. The "Church of England" has no right to exist. It is no church at all. It is a false religion whose members must convert unconditionally to the Catholic Church as the church properties that were stolen from the true Church in the Sixteenth Century are returned to their rightful owner. Yet the communique issued by the "Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity makes it appear that the "Church of England" is a legitimate "church" that exercises some share in "apostolic tradition" "maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium? "Churches," as in the plural case? Huh? Duh? There is only one Church, the Catholic Church, and none other.
As noted in the companion article being published today, Once Again, It is All About Truth, conciliarism is founded in large part upon a rejection of the perpetually binding nature of dogmatic truth, resulting in absurdities being presented to explain away outright contradictions of the teaching of the Catholic Church. The communique of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity is founded in the absurdity that those who have no ability to "ordain" men to an episcopacy that they do not have (as they lack valid orders) are to be condemned for voting to "ordain" women, who cannot be "ordained" to anything. (And the communique of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity ignores the not-so-hidden-fact that many "priests" in the conciliar structures do indeed favor women's ordination and have said so quite publicly without anything happening to their canonical "status" whatsoever. Just another day immersed in the absurdities and contradictions of conciliarism.)
The Anglicans can do anything they want to do as their "religion" is not from God. Should it come as a surprise that representatives of a false religion "vote" to further the apostasies that began in 1534 when a lustful king had himself declared by Parliament supreme head of the church in England, apostasies and infidelities that prompted two of the martyrs we commemorate today, Saint John Fisher and Saint Thomas More, to be beheaded? What's the big deal about masqueraders of a false religion seeking to "ordain" women when their ancestor-masqueraders voted to permit contraception and have taken "tolerant" positions concerning the slaughter of innocent children in their mothers' wombs under cover of law and concerning wanton acts of vice, both natural and unnatural, in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? It's only logical that apostates act in ever most apostate ways. Then again, why should fellow apostates on the Tiber recognize the apostate nature of a "church" whose founding let loose much Catholic blood near the Thames?
The communique issued by the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is under the direction of the notorious Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, also reflected once again that theological view of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that the "churches" of the First Millennium are the models to which all "churches," including the Anglican "church" must adhere. What I wrote seventeen days ago now in
Missing a Millennium is relevant once again:
We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896.)
Obviously, these words apply just as much to the sect that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and its other "reformed" rites (episcopal consecration, priestly ordination, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick, Reconciliation) as they do to the Anglican sect. These words of Pope Leo XIII demonstrate forcefully and infallibly the perpetually binding judgment that the Anglicans do not have valid orders and valid sacraments. Walter Kasper rejects this, as he made clear in an address on May 24, 2003:
As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.
To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.
This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.
It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.
Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.
Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.
It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.
Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis.
A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation
This is simply apostasy of the highest order. Apostolic succession is not "an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles"? The perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Cenae needs to be re-evaluated? No member of the Catholic Church is free to assert such things and remain a Catholic in good standing (see Number 9, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
The dogmatic decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are historically conditioned? Oh, please do not even attempt to say that Kasper is not reflecting the exact view of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the "time-conditioned" nature of past dogmatic decrees and/or papal encyclical letters. Ratzinger/Benedict has told us in his very words that he believes this precise thing, a proposition that has been condemned by that Vatican Council and to which he, Ratzinger, had to swear against in The Oath Against Modernism.
Ah, but this is why, you see, Walter Kasper does not believe that there is any need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, who he clearly believes have true bishops and true priests. It is simply up to the Lambeth Committee to chart its own "direction," to determine, in Kasper's words, whether Anglicans belongs more "to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox," which leads to the second major error in Kasper's recent remarks: that the patriarchies of the East constituted a separate "church" prior to the Greek Schism of 1054. No such "church" existed.
This is where the efforts to re-define the doctrine of Papal Primacy in order to advance "dialogue" with the Orthodox as per Principles of Catholic Theology and The Ravenna Document meet up with Kasper's "challenge" to the Anglicans to discern their "identity." Kasper is signaling quite plainly that it is possible for those Anglicans willing to effect a reunion with Rome, albeit Rome in conciliar captivity, along the same lines as that being proposed as a possible solution to the Orthodox in The Ravenna Document if the upcoming meeting of the Lambeth Committee "continues" on the path of the Protestantism of the Sixteenth Century in which the Anglican sect has its very origins. "High Anglicans" would be permitted their place in the One World Church without necessarily agreeing to every jot and tittle of those "historically conditioned" decrees of the Second Millennium.
"Pluriformity in unity," to use Kasper's words, "diversity in unity," to "unity in multiplicity" and "multiplicity in unity," to use Ratzinger/Benedict's words.
Lost in all of this willingness to subject immutable truths to the "historical-critical" method of Hegelian analysis is the fact that one is either a Catholic who assents to all of the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith, or he he is not. How absurd is it to ask Protestants to determine whether they belong to the Protestantism in which their sects had their origins? The Anglican "church" has no right from God to exist. It is a false religion. Its adherents are in need to be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church.
Although even I would be very surprised if the conciliar Vatican did not require Anglican "priests" seeking to enter what they think is the Catholic Church en masse at this time to be "ordained" de novo in the invalid conciliar rite of priestly ordination by conciliarism's invalidly "consecrated" "bishops." (Attempting to circumvent Apostolicae Curae at a time when the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X is trying to "negotiate" with conciliar authorities would probably be the death blow to a "deal" which the conciliar Vatican very much wants to consummate.) This has been the practice since Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II began accepting Anglican"priests" into the counterfeit church of conciliarism in 1980, providing them with their own "Anglican Use" liturgy that might be called in the future a "third form of the Roman Rite," the mere fact that Walter Kasper could call into question the binding nature of Apostolicae Curae by the use of the historical-critical method of claiming that past documents were valid for their time but were the prisoner of "contingent" circumstances without being censured for doing so speaks volumes about the state of the conciliar church's own apostasies. How absurd is it for the conciliar "pontiffs" to have treated the various non-"archbishops" of Canterbury as "brother bishops" when they have required Anglican "priests" to be "ordained" de novo?
A mass conversion of "High Anglicans" to the counterfeit church of conciliarism will make for great press for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a veritable sign of the "restoration." Such a "restoration" is but an illusion. Just take a look at the motley crew of officially sanctioned "movements" that will be represented at World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia, later this month (see Ah, the Sweet Serenity of Dialogue) to realize that those "High Anglicans" will have traded their places on the S.S. Andrea Doria for places on the S.S. Titanic. The "Anglo-Catholics" of Anglicanism simply will become "Anglo-Catholics" of conciliarism, taking their place with Focolare and Opus Dei and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and the ultra-progressivists in the ranks of the English conciliar "clergy" whose views on many issues are almost identical to those of the Anglican progressivists form whom they are fleeing at the present time. ("What's that over there, an iceberg?" "Nah, just a lot of fog." "Oops.")
The English martyrs who gave up their lives to defend the Catholic Faith compromised not one little bit with the "authority" of the renegade, schismatic and eventually heretical "Church of England." Some stalwart martyrs gave up their lives rather than to walk into an Anglican church:
A lady was lately told that she should be let out of prison if she would just once allow herself to be seen walking through an Anglican church. She refused. She had come into prison with a sound conscience and would depart with it, or die. In Henry's day [King Henry VIII], the whole kingdom, with all its bishops and learned men, abjured its faith at one word of the tyrant. But now, in his daughter's days [the daughter was Queen Elizabeth], boys and women boldly profess their faith before the judges and refuse to make the slightest concession even at the threat of death.
"The adversaries are very mad that by no cruelty can they move a single Catholic from his resolution, no, not even a little girl. A young lady of sixteen was questioned by the sham bishop of London about the Pope, and answered him with courage, and even made fun of him in public, and so was ordered to be carried to the public prison . . . One the way she cried out that she was being carried to that place for her religion." (Letter of Blessed Edmond Campion, S.J., to his Jesuit superiors in Rome, quoted in Father
Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion, Hero of God's Underground, Vision Books: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957.)
What does any of this mean to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI or to Walter Kasper, both of whom probably believe that "not enough" was done by Pope Saint Pius V to save England for the Faith, that he acted "too rashly" in issuing the following decree of excommunication to Queen Elizabeth I, who had the notorious Richard Topcliffe, the priest-catcher, in her employ?
Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.
He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.
1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God's goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children's faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England together with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.
2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defence or evasion.
3. We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth -and recognising that her mind is so fixed and set that she has not only despised the pious prayers and admonitions with which Catholic princes have tried to cure and convert her but has not even permitted the nuncios sent to her in this matter by this See to cross into England, are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of justice, though we cannot forbear to regret that we should be forced to turn, upon one whose ancestors have so well deserved of the Christian community. Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.
4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.
5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship. fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the abovesaid matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.
6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever
it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibited or shown.
Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 April 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.(Pope Saint Pius V,
Regnans in Excelsis.)
The miserable ruin prophesied by Pope Saint Pius V on April 27, 1570, has manifested itself repeatedly in the "Anglican Communion" throughout the course of the past four hundred plus years. That the conciliar authorities have thought it possible to enter into "dialogue" with apostates whose ancestors had butchered scores upon scores of thousands of Catholics and permitted every deviation imaginable is simply another sign of how bereft they, the conciliar authorities, are of the sensus Catholicus.
We should be inspired by the examples of Saints Thomas More and John Fisher and of the Martyrs of Gorkum to prefer death rather than to compromise one single truth of the Catholic Faith, rather than even to give the appearance than anything about the Faith, no less the exercise of Papal Primacy itself, is "negotiable" in some kind of "dialogue." Consider the brave witness given by the Martyrs of Gorkum:
The year 1572, Luther and Calvin had already wrested from the Church a great part of Europe. The iconoclastic storm had swept through the Netherlands, and was followed by a struggle between Lutheranism and Calvinism in which the latter was victorious. In 1571 the Calvinists held their first synod, at Embden. On 1 April of the next year the Watergeuzen (Sea-beggars) conquered Briel and later Vlissingen and other places. In June, Dortrecht and Gorkum fell into their hands and at Gorkum they captured nine Franciscans. These were: Nicholas Pieck, guardian of Gorkum, Hieronymns of Weert, vicar, Theodorus van der Eem, of Amersfoort, Nicasius Janssen, of Heeze, Willehad of Denmark, Godefried of Mervel, Antonius Of weert, Antonius of Hoornaer, and Franciseus de Roye, of Brussels. To these were added two lay brothers from the same monastery, Petrus of Assche and Cornelius of Wyk near Duurstede. Almost at the same time the Calvinists laid their hands on the learned parish priest of Gorkum, Leonardus Vechel of Bois-le-Duc, who had made distinguished studies in Louvain, and also has assistant Nicolaas Janssen, surnamed Poppel, of Welde in Belgium. With the above, were also imprisoned Godefried van Duynsen, of Gorkum who was active as a priest in his native city, and Joannes Lenartz of Oisterwljk, an Augustinian and director of the convent of Augustinian nuns in Gorkum. To these fifteen, who from the very first underwent all the sufferings and torments of the persecution, were later added four more companions: Joannes van Hoornaer, a Dominican of the Cologne province and parish priest not far from Gorkum, who, when apprised of the incarceration of the clergy ot Gorkum, hastened to the city in order to administer the sacraments to them and was seized and imprisoned with the rest, Jacobus Lacops of Oudenaar, a Norbertine, who after leading a frivolous life, being disobedient to his order, and neglectful of his religious duties, reformed, became a curate in Monster, Holland and was imprisoned in 1572; Adrianus Janssen of Hilvarenbeek, at one time a Premonstratensian and parish priest in Monster, who was sent to Brielle with Jacobus Lacops; and lastly Andreas Wouters of Heynoord, whose conduct was not edifying up to the time of his arrest, but who made ample amends by his martyrdom.
After enduring much suffering and abuse in the prison at Gorkum (26 June-6 July) the first fifteen martyrs were transferred to Brielle. On their way to Dortrecht they were exhibited for money to the curious and arrived at Brielle 13 July. On the following day, Lumey, the commander of the Watergeuzen, caused the martyrs to be interrogated and ordered a sort of disputation. In the meantime the four other martyrs also arrived. It was exacted of each that he abandon his belief in the Blessed Sacrament and in papal supremacy. All remained firm in their faith. Meanwhile there came a letter from William of Orange which enjoined all those in authority to leave priests and religious unmolested. Nevertheless Lumey caused the martyrs to be hanged in the night of 9 July, in a turfshed amid cruel mutilations. Their beatification took place on 14 Nov., 1675, and their canonization on 29 June, 1865. For many years the place of their martyrdom in Brielle has been the scene of numerous pilgrimages and processions. (The Martyrs of Gorkum)
(One will notice that the Calvinists, ever eager to make a buck--or the Dutch equivalent thereof, charged admission for the curious to see the martyrs, who would not renounce their belief in the Blessed Sacrament and in papal supremacy. It is that very truth of papal supremacy that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is prepared to "discuss" with the heretical and schismatic Orthodox on the basis of The Ravenna Document and that Walter Kasper had been willing to do with the "mainstream" Anglicans prior to the vote taken on Monday, July 7, 2008, in favor of women "bishops.")
Oh, my friends, how we must pray and make sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, spending time on our knees in earnest and humble prayer before His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and praying as many Rosaries each day as the duties of our states-in-life permit. The traps that are being laid to ensnare souls are truly preternatural in origin. We must take refuge in the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we beg to be the beneficiaries of the Mercy that flows forth from the Most Sacred heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in order to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can help to bring about this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady's Fatima Message. What are we waiting for?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now
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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Thomas More, pray for us.
Saint John Fisher, pray for us.
Saint Veronica Giuliani, pray for us.
Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us.
The Martyrs of Gorkum, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints