Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 July 23, 2007

A Shopworn Line: "He Just 'Had' to Say That"

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The spinning in behalf of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum is enough to make one's head own spin round and around and round. This reminds me of how the late liberal radio commentator George Hamilton Combs, who had been a one-term Congressman from Missouri (1927-1929), signed on to his Mutual Broadcasting System radio broadcast, "This is how the world is spinnnnnnnnnnnning toooooonight!" (Combs followed conservative commentator Fulton Lewis, Jr., on WOR-Radio in New York in the early 1960s.)

One of the latest "spins" concerning Summorum Pontificum and the "Motu Mass" was related a few days ago. It concerns the utterly and totally unfounded speculation that Ratzinger just has to say that priests who offer the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli in 1962 because he needs the cooperation of his conciliar "bishops" to implement the Motu Mass. Huh? Go tell that to the "priests" of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King and the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, and the Good Shepherd Institute--and each of the other existing indult communities that operate under "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia De--who are going to be required to "concelebrate" at next year's "Chrism Mass" in the dioceses in which their chapels operate.

I don't think anyone who is saying at present that Ratzinger was being gratuitous in his demand that "priests" attached to the 1962 Missal must not refuse to offer the Novus Ordo Missae (or question its doctrinal value and holiness) are going to be able to contend in late-March of 2008 that he, Ratzinger, did not mean exactly what he said. And there is no proof whatsoever to contend that Ratzinger will not insist on this with the Society of Saint Pius X. If the Society of Saint Pius X is exempted, for example, why can't the other "indult" groups be exempted? If Ratzinger exempts one he must exempt them all, at which point the conciliar "bishops" will rebel and demand an enforcement of what he, Ratzinger, wrote in Summorum Pontificum  and his accompanying letter to them had to be done in order to demonstrate the "unity" of the "two forms of the one Roman Rite."

Logic and rationality are, therefore, in short supply not only in the circles of those who want to believe that one can belong to a sedevacantist congregation while working with conciliar officials to undermine the position of that congregation. Logic and rationality are in short supply in a few places where enthusiasts for Summorum Pontificum are spinning reality just as apologists for career politicians do as a matter of course. How is it in the service of truth to deny that the plain words of the man one believes to be the "pope" do not actually mean what they say they mean?

Oh, well, as noted just above, this is par for the course in the political world, as I have written about so extensively over the years.

To wit, Numerous Catholics in the State of New York, from a prominent moral theologian who works closely with the New York State Right to Life Committee (which admits that the law can permit the killing of the innocent preborn in cases where it is alleged that a mother’s life is “endangered” to a whole assortment of pro-life activists, especially those in the Conservative Party of the State of New York, said in 1994 that then State Senator George Pataki just had to say he was “pro-choice” if he wanted to defeat then Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo in that year’s general election. These activists discouraged people from voting for the gubernatorial nominee of the Right to Life Party of the State of New York, Robert Walsh, saying that it was more important to get rid of Cuomo than it was to “waste” a vote of conscience for a man who “had no chance to win.”

“Pataki doesn’t mean what he’s saying,” an activist with ties to the Archdiocese of New York told me at the time. “He really is pro-life.”

My response was as follows:

“There are two possibilities here: the first is that Pataki is lying about his support of ‘abortion rights’ in order to get elected. You want me, therefore, to enable a liar who is ashamed of giving voice to what you claim he believes personally. No sale.

“The second possibility is as follows: Pataki really is pro-death and he will use his governorship to advance the cause of abortion just as ardently as Mario Cuomo.”

That second possibility turned out, obviously, to have been the case all along. Pataki has championed baby-killing during his ten-plus years as Governor of the State of New York, denouncing then Presidential candidate Patrick Joseph Buchanan in 1996 as an extremist who was a threat to “women’s reproductive rights.” Pataki has also championed the cause of “domestic partnership rights” for those steeped in unrepentant acts of perversity in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Those who apologized for his support of baby-killing in 1994 surrendered to the exigencies of short-term expediency rather than standing steadfast in support of the basic Catholic principle of the inviolability all innocent human of life in all things at all times without exception.

There is particular irony in the case of the 1994 elections. The aforementioned candidate of the Right to Life Party, Robert Walsh, spoke in the Fall of 1996 in a graduate course on Political Parties that I was teaching at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University. He told the story of how then Governor Cuomo came rushing up to him before one of their televised debates two years before, telling him, “Bob, I’m pro-life! I have to say I’m pro-choice in order to get elected.”

The very sad part of this story is that Mario Cuomo probably is pro-life. When running in a Democratic Party primary for Lieutenant Governor of New York in 1974, Cuomo said in a debate held in Albany, New York, in August of that year that he would have voted against the bill permitting abortion in the first trimester had he been a member of the New York State Legislature in 1970. Three years later in a failed bid for the Mayoralty of the City of New York, though, having learned from his political mentor, then Governor Hugh L. Carey, Cuomo had adopted the “I’m personally opposed to abortion” line that he continues to justify in public discourse.

White House adviser Karl Rove came up in 2001 with a variation of Carey's “I’m personally opposed to abortion” line that Carey's successor, Cuomo, perfected so well during course of his public life. Rove's line that “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land" emerged during the United States Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings of then former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft in January of 2001. Ashcroft appeared to choke on the words as he spoke them. He just "had" to say them, however, to get confirmed, the first of many things Ashcroft just "had" to do during the first term of the George Walker Bush administration.

Then Jersey City, New Jersey, Mayor Brent Schundler used Rove's "settled law" line in 2003 when asked about abortion in his failed bid for Governor of the State of New Jersey against pro-abortion Catholic James McGreevey (who won handily but who had to resign in 2004 as a result of an impending Federal investigation of his chief fund-raiser and his admission that he was a practitioner of perverted acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments). Various conservative activists and commentators, including Sean Hannity, fell into line, saying, “Well, Schundler’s right. Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There’s nothing he can do about it.” And that Karl Rove brainchild has been used ever since, usually unsuccessfully, in the campaigns of Republican candidates in Congressional districts and/or states where being avowedly pro-life is considered to be a political liability. (The decision to use the line is made after considerable polling and focus-group testing. How will the pro-life electoral base react to such a line? Will pro-life activists help to enable such double-speak? What percentage of the undecided vote would be influenced positively by the use of such a line?)

Although current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who takes a view of executive power that would have made Napoleon Bonaparte seem like Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, wrote as Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court a decision that nullified a mere parental notification law that had been enacted by the Texas State Legislature and signed into law by then Governor George W. Bush, he left no doubt as to his own position concerning Roe v. Wade during his own Senate confirmation hearings in early 2005, repeating the now-familiar refrain of it being “the settled law of the land” and that he would “enforce” the law.

No holder of the public weal, whether he be elected popularly or appointed to serve on the bench, is free to make statements that give the appearance that unjust and immoral actions of any branch of a government represent “settled law” that they must enforce and apply. This is indeed nothing other than a self-serving justification made in the interests of expediency. And if one wants to talk about Suarezian mental reservations in any of the above (or other) cases, then you must also be consistent and accept the explanations offered by that famous graduate of Georgetown University who remains a past master of the carefully crafted phrase and the mental reservation, William Jefferson Blyth Clinton. His apologists justified all of his self-serving rationalizations and prevarications repeatedly.

Oh, I forgot one important example of "he just has to say that." How many times has George Walker Bush said that "Islam is a religion of peace" over the past six years? A retired lieutenant general of the United States Marines told me in 2001, "Well, he just has to say that." Truth doesn't matter to apologists for George W. Bush or for apologists of Ratzinger's Summorum Pontificum.

Here is where apologists for conciliarism and its antipopes intersect with apologists for phony pro-life politicians, most of whom support the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs as a matter of principle and who support, if not help to fund by means of taxpayer dollars, the chemical assassination of children provided by so-called "family planning" programs, both domestically and internationally. Both sets of apologists project into the minds of the people they are supporting their own fondest wishes for what they, the apologists, want their heroes to be, being willing to jettison all mention of anything and everything that could possibly burst bubbles into the balloons of the illusory worlds in which they want others to join them.

Conciliarism is founded upon a rejection of certain truths of the Catholic Faith (the nature of the Church, the acceptance of the condemned propositions of religious liberty and the separation of Church and State, false ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue) and ambiguities about others, which ambiguities are meant to pave the way for a further "evolution" of dogma. It has never been the case of the Catholic Church that ambiguity has been used in her documents or decrees. Certainty is what is taught by the Catholic Church, not ambiguity, no less outright contradictions of her consistent, perennial teaching. Defenders of conciliarism have long sought to reconcile contradictions and ambiguities with Catholic teaching, being joined at present by those who want to make of Summorum Pontificum something that it is not and to ignore, as though it simply does not exist, Joseph Ratzinger's well-stated and much reiterated belief that it is possible for past Church statements and decrees to become "obsolete," thereby demonstrating his belief in the evolution of dogma condemned by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pascendi Dominci Gregis and the Oath Against Modernism, as well as many other sources.

Oh, no, none of that matters. We have to "strategize" without mentioning inconvenient facts. We have to project into the minds of others what we want them to believe

Similarly, apologists for phony pro-life politicians are simply the product of the set of lies that produced the modern state, which is indifferent to the true Faith and thus indifferent to the fact that social order is impossible over the long term unless it, the civil state, seeks to foster those conditions in which its citizens can better sanctify and to thus save their souls as Catholics. The degradation of the modern state is simply one of the many, inter-related and multifaceted logical consequences of an entire governmental system founded on the rejection of the necessity of belief in the entirety of the Deposit of Faith entrusted by the God-Man Himself, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as the foundation of all personal and social order. It is a relatively easy thing for men to begin to think and to act solely in earthbound, naturalistic, secular terms once they accept the Protestant and Masonic notion that the State must be indifferent to specific doctrinal claims while they pursue the “common good” as best they can in spite of religious and “philosophical” differences.

The religiously indifferentist state is a lie. It is the lie of Modernity. It is the lie of Modernism, as Pope Saint Pius X noted so well in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, which is in direct and total contradiction conciliarism's embrace of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic notion of the separation of Church and State:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."


The modern state that is so praised by conciliarism despite past condemnations by true popes of the Catholic Church is founded in a specific and categorical rejection of the necessity of belief in the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate womb as the focal point for all personal and social actions, rooted as they must be in an acceptance to everything contained in the Deposit Faith and the authority of the true Church to interpose herself directly in public discourse when the good of souls demands her intervention to seek to correct actions that are contrary to God’s laws and that thus put into jeopardy the sanctification and salvation of the those souls, which have been entrusted to her pastoral care unto eternity by her Divine Bridegroom Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Even past defenders of the Social Reign of Christ King, it appears, are willing to temporize their criticism of conciliarism's rejection of Our Lord's Social Kingship in order to serve as the same kind of cheerleaders for Summorum Pontificum as "conservatives" in the political order to continue to serve for the madman and mass murderer named George Walker Bush, whose conversion to the true Catholic Faith we must, of course, pray for every day.

To what end? To what end? To see altar girls assist at putative offerings of the modernized version of the Mass of Tradition? To see Holy Communion (which will really be Holy Communion when the Motu Mass is offered by a true priest) distributed in the hand during the Motu Mass? To see the incorporation of the Novus Ordo lectionary into the Motu Mass in more and more dioceses? To see able-bodied people standing for the reception of Holy Communion? To see the prefaces from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service incorporated into the Motu Mass? To what end? To what legitimate end does one seek to deconstruct the plain words of Summorum Pontificum and its accompanying letter and dare to presume that Joseph Ratzinger is just "saying" things that he does not actually believe? To what end?

Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that one must take the same line publicly as he believes privately. While he was writing about this as it pertains to those in public office, his words serve as an important reminder that we must be people of integrity at all times and say what we mean and mean what we say:

Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.


Did I project into the mind of Karol Wojtyla my own Catholic thoughts? You bet I did. Did I ever try to paint a rosier picture about Wojtyla's "pontificate" than I believed to be the case? Yes, to my utter shame--and for which I am still trying to do penance. This is one of the reasons I know all about projecting one's thoughts into the minds of the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. I did it a lot before the altar girl fiasco in 1994 convinced me to admit publicly that all was not well, thereby starting me on a long process of moving from being a papaloter to a "resist and recognizer" to coming to accept the doctrinal position stated so well by the late Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda in an interview in an Italian newspaper in 2005 that was reported on Zenit on February 8, 2005:

“It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy.”


Although I have been ahead of the curve--and remain very much hated for it--in rejecting positivism in the political realm, exposing one phony pro-life politician after another in my writing and speaking and teacher (and three campaigns for office from 1986 to 1998)), I was behind the curve for far too long when it came to looking honestly at our ecclesiastical situation. This is why it saddens me to see priests of the Society of Saint Pius X and others walking down that same, well-traveled path to a loss of integrity and from there to oblivion. Mind you, this is written without one whit of a sense of superiority or righteousness. Having been so willfully blind for so long, ladies and gentlemen, it is just a tragedy to see people who dearly love God want to deconstruct the plain meaning of Ratzinger's words in Summorum Pontificum and his accompanying letter to the conciliar "bishops," if only, as my dear wife Sharon noted one evening, to even avoid thinking about the possibility that the longtime champions of the truth of our ecclesiastical position (that those who defect from the Catholic Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately) have been right all along.

No one just "has" to say something that he does not believe. It is an offense against truth, therefore, to assert without any proof or rational foundation whatsoever that another has just "had" to say something he does not believe in order to pursue other legitimate ends. One who says something he does not believe is a liar. Our Lord did have something to say about this, did He not?

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. (Mt. 5: 37)


Clinging ever fast to Our Lady in these times of apostasy and betrayal, let us be grateful for the wonderful shepherds in the catacombs who serve the dwindling remains of  those few Catholics who are willing to eschew human respect and the canonical "protection" of false shepherds in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have entrusted their immortal souls to their pastoral care unto eternity. Let us pray a Rosary of thanksgiving right now for these truly good shepherds, who exemplify these words of Our Blessed Lord Himself:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.

And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (Jn. 10: 11-16)


May the sacrifices made by the true shepherds in the Catholic catacombs help to usher in the day when we will have a Chief Shepherd once again to pasture the entire Sheepfold of Christ that is the Church Militant on earth to the wonderful pastures of the Good Shepherd in Heaven.


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.

Saint Apollinaris, pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdalen, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Saint Praxedes, pray for.

Saint Jerome Emilian, pray for us.

Saint Margaret of Antioch, pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdalene, pray for us.

Saint Simon Stock, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Camillus de Lillus, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, 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 Gertrude the Great, pray for us.

Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, 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 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 Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, 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.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Maximilian Mary Kolbe, pray for us.

Padre Pio, 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.


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

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

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

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

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

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

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

Response:  Amen.  



© Copyright 2007, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.