Keep Trying, Keep Trying
by Thomas A. Droleskey
There are many sources of news available to us today. As I have indicated on many occasions on this site since its inception, we gave up television, which we watched for news and baseball and the occasional old motion picture, in 2003. Although I have made a lot of bonehead decisions in my life, giving up television was one of the best decisions that I ever made, albeit one that I should have made decades before. (See, among other articles,
In Full Communion with the Golden Calf and Nothing Super About the "Super Bowl".)
Still and all, as should be seen rather readily, I do keep up with news reports via online sources. I don't go to many sources, just a few. I abhor "internet surfing" as it is just as much a waste of one's precious Catholic time as "channel surfing" with a television remote control device. It is frequently the case that readers send me links to various stories on different websites.
Some of the websites, however, whose stories are sent to my attention feature, at least on some occasions, intellectually dishonest summaries of news stories from other sources, sometimes referenced and sometimes not, without ever providing a "hot link" so that one can judge for himself the honesty of the summary. This is a particular characteristic of one particular website, whose operators hide behind the cloak of anonymity and do not reveal much, if anything, about their background when asked directly about it by their readers, that features brief descriptions of news items, spiced with interpretations and "analysis," some of which involve an outright distortion of reality, such as claiming that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was "orthodox" doctrinally when the truth, as shall be seen later in this commentary, is that he was a Modernist to the core of his being.
To wit, one such report on the website in question made it appear as though Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had said that he had been "pushed' by his Guardian Angel when he fell and broke his wrist in July:
Is Benedict-Ratzinger succumbing to senile dementia? Some of his statements lately are much farther out now than before. First, there was his third encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate, in which he calls for a totalitarian supra-national organization to enforce economical policy on the world. Then he stated in a Teilardian fog that the Holy Eucharist is the Cosmos. Now he claims that his guardian angel threw him down and broke his wrist "on superior orders" -- of God. Scary! [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the Associated Press.]
There is enough information on the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to avoid sensationalizing the truth by twisting a news report, if ever so subtly, into making it appear as thought the false "pontiff" said something that he did not say. This is the actual report from the Associated Press about what Ratzinger/Benedict said happened when he broke his wrist while on vacation:
LES COMBES, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said Wednesday that his "guardian angel" let him down when he fell and broke his wrist earlier this month, but that the angel was clearly acting "on superior orders."
The pope thanked law enforcement officials for being "like angels," as he prepared to depart Les Combes, the Alpine resort where he tripped and injured his wrist 10 days ago while on vacation.
"Unfortunately, my own guardian angel did not prevent my injury, certainly following superior orders," Benedict said.
"Perhaps the Lord wanted to teach me more patience and humility, give me more time for prayer and meditation," the pope added.
Benedict leaves Les Combes, near the French border, later Wednesday to spend the rest of the summer in Castel Gandolfo, a papal retreat near Rome.
The 82-year-old pope fell in his mountain chalet and fractured his right wrist. He had surgery at a local hospital on July 17 and spent the rest of his two-week vacation in a cast. (Guardian angel' did not prevent accident)
Saying that "my own guardian angel did not prevent my injury, certainly following superior orders" is far, far different from asserting, most disingenuously and in a highly sensational manner, that "his guardian angel threw him down and broke his wrist 'on superior orders.'"
Do you see the distortion here? The moral is this: do not trust alleged news sources that twist stories in such a manner. There are times when useful and important information is provided on the site in question, especially letters from readers about the machinations in the Society of Saint Pius X. There are times, such as the one just cited, when distortion is the rule rather than accuracy.
Thus, my friends, go the original source, which takes a bit of doing when one does not have a "hot link" to follow. One has to put the general subject matter into a web browser and wait to see if the actual story referenced comes up. As just noted, however, I have found that the particular site in question features news digests that are sometimes accurate and sometimes distorted. Distortion has nothing to do with the integrity required by the Catholic Faith.
There is enough information about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's defections from the Faith without having to make things up about him. He is still a human being--and a true priest, no less--who is loved by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in spite of his multiple defections from the Catholic Faith and whose salvation is near to the tender mercies of His Most Sacred Heart. It is not permissible to caricature the false "pontiff's" words even though he has caricatured the nature of the Catholic Faith and even though he has blasphemed the honor and glory and majesty of God. What good is accomplished by violating the precepts of the Eighth Commandment so flagrantly? What rational good is served by such distortion and misrepresentation?
One also finds on the website in question a tendency, at least on some occasions, however rare, to censor the news. Information is provided about various conciliar priests and presbyters who are arrested for the commission of various crimes, including those involving moral offenses. All well and good. There has been, however, no mention thus far, unless I have missed something, of the arrest on July 15, 2009, of Bishop Dennis McCormack on Long Island on a morals charge, augmented by the presence, it has been reported, of a videotape of the crime. The same website that distorted Ratzinger/Benedict's words about his Guardian Angel has been strangely silent about the arrest of Bishop Dennis McCormack (see LONG ISLAND MAN POSING AS BISHOP, DENNIS MCCORMACK, ARRESTED), leading one to wonder why this is so. An oversight? This is not a matter of internal forum or detraction, that is, revealing a private fault that is not generally known when there is no need to make the fault a matter of public knowledge. Bishop McCormack's arrest is a public matter. Why the censorship? Very strange.
No amount of "we've told you so's" about the accuracy of various reports on a particular site in the past and no amount of other self-serving and gratuitous boasts can justify distortion of the truth even on one occasion, and those boasts cannot justify a strange silence about the arrest of a cleric on a morals charge when there are many news digests found on that particular site that deal with clerics arrested on such charges. Readers should approach such a site with a wary eye. There is only one traditional news portal that I am aware of that reports hard news honestly and accurately, providing "hot links" along with its own commentaries, and that is The Novus Ordo Files News Archive and Analysis page. It is regrettable that this valuable resource is not updated more frequently.
Readers of this site know who I am. They know of the errors that I have made in the past. My name has been associated with this site from its inception--and with the title Christ or Chaos from the time that the printed journal began its seven year life thirteen years ago this month. I have kept most of my past articles that referred to the conciliar "pontiffs" as legitimate Successors of Saint Peter available for reading as it would be wrong to pretend that I had always held the position that those who defect from articles contained in the Deposit of Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately. I make no claim to personal infallibility. I have tried only to seek the truth as I have known it be, succeeding on some occasions and failing on others, seeking the guidance of those who are more learned than me before publishing certain articles. My articles, which date back to my days at The Wanderer in October of 1992, are fair game for comment and criticism as I make it clear that my name is attached to those articles and that I bear a public responsibility for them in this life and an eternal responsibility to God for them.
While Catholic authors have indeed used anonymity when publishing various books or articles on the lives of the saints or on the pursuit of perfection in the interior life to avoid any earthly credit being given unto them, it is useful in most instances to state one's identity clearly when dealing with controversial matters so that readers can take into consideration author's reliability as a Catholic commentator and for the intellectual integrity of his work, although, of course, this is a matter of subjective judgment that is not received from the hand of God.
It is with this in mind that news reports concerning the interview conducted with the Maestro Emeritus of the Sistine Chapel, Monsignor Dominico Bartoloucci, must be read. One needs to go to the actual interview itself to assess its contents. Do not rely on the news digests, my friends, as your sole source of news. Tabloid journalism is wrong in the secular media. It is wrong for Catholics to engage in such journalism. News digests do not always accurately report the contents of another news story accurately. And the website that featured the distortion of Ratzinger/Benedict's words about the fall that resulted in his broken wrist and that has remained mute about the arrest of Bishop Dennis McCormack has had the absolute gall to assert that Angelo Roncalli/John XIII "was one of the staunchest traditional popes on the liturgy, and on doctrine as well," a falsehood that will be examined shortly.
To find a translation in its entirety of Monsignor Bartolucci's interview with two representatives of an Italian website,
Disputationes Theologicae, one must go to the RORATE CĂLI blogspot. The RORATE CÆLI blogspot contains useful primary documents that can be found on few other sites. Its flaw, of course, is that its contributors, some of whom write under the cloak of pseudonyms, censor any "bad" news about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. That is, the RORATE CÆLI blogspot never--not once, not ever--defends the honor and glory and majesty of God by even bothering to report, no less to denounce, the praise that Ratzinger/Benedict bestows upon one false religion after another as he calls places of false worship, such as mosques, as "sacred" and as he personally esteems with his own priestly hands the symbols of false religions, each of which is loathsome in the sight of God.
The RORATE CÆLI blogspot, steeped in its efforts to defend the legitimacy of the conciliar "pontiffs," contains, at least on some occasions, contradictions on its own page, a glaring example of which is displayed as of this writing on Saturday, August 22, 2009, the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
To wit, the lead story at 3:50 p.m., Central Daylight Saving Time, on the RORATE CÆLI site concerns a report that the "reform of the reform" is going to be a reality, that is, that there will be at some point before the end of the world a "hybrid" version of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service as it is "improved' with the use of less improvisation, especially in the the "Introductory Rites," and the reaffirmation of the universal norm of reception of what purports to be the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, admitting the local "indults" that have been granted to national "episcopal" conferences for Catholics attached to the conciliar structures to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in their hands, as the "possibility" of restoring the practice of presbyters facing the table rather than the people, at least at the moment of the alleged consecration in the "Eucharistic Prayer," is studied.
This "urgent" news alert on RORATE CÆLI exists on the same page as the interview with the aforementioned Monsignor Bartolucci, who warned categorically against a "hybrid Mass" as there is only one Mass, that of Tradition, which he has offered exclusively throughout his priesthood, that is worthy to be used in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church:
Let us return to the crisis of the Church and to the fact that so many seminaries have closed down, do you, Monsignore, support a return to the continuation of Tradition?
Look here, to defend the old rite is not the same as being a worshipper of ancient times; it is to be “eternal”. You see, when one gives the traditional mass names like “Mass of Saint Pius V” or “Tridentine” one is wrong, it makes it seem as if it is a mass belonging to a certain epoch. It is our Mass, the Roman universal Mass, valid everywhere and in all times, a single language spoken from the Oceania to the Arctic’s. Concerning the continuity in time, I would like to tell you an episode. Once we were together with a Bishop whose name I forgot, in a small church in Mugello, when there came the sudden notice that a brother of ours had died. We suggested that we at once celebrate a Mass, but then we realized that we only had old Missals at hand. The Bishop refused categorically to celebrate. I will never forget it and I repeat that the continuity of the liturgy means that – except for small details – it can be celebrated today, with that old dusty missal standing on a bookshelf and which for four centuries or more has served my predecessors.
Monsignore, there is much talk about a “reform of the reform” which could take away the deformities that came in the 70-ies.
The question is rather complicated. That the new rite had deficiencies is by now becoming evident for everybody, and the Pope has many times said and written that we must “keep what is ancient” (guardare all'antico). However we must beware of the temptations of introducing hybrid measures. The liturgy with a big “L” is the one that comes to us from centuries back, it is the reference, it is not the debased liturgy which holds so many compromises “that make God sad and the enemy happy” ("a Dio spiacenti e a l’inimici sui”) (RORATE CÆLI)
Contrast Monsignor Bartolucci's rejection of the "reform of the reform" as a hybrid measure in an interview praised as as "bombshell on RORATE CÆLI with that same site's praise of news, found in
Il Giornale, that the very "reform of the reform" rejected by Monsignor Bartolucci is proceeding:
RORATE note: The Pope needed, for practical purposes, this first bureaucratic step by the Congregation for Divine Worship. His decisions on this matter will come in the next few months and years. May God grant him many more fruitful years of work as Successor of Peter. (RORATE CÆLI)
More "fruitful" years of work as "Successor of Peter." Here is part of the "fruit" of Ratzinger/Benedict's false pontificate that one will never see publicized on the self-censorious RORATE CÆLI blogspot:
Ratzinger/Benedict denies the nature of dogmatic truth, cleaving to philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time, that each expression of dogma is necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced. Condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
Ratzinger/Benedict specifically rejects the "ecumenism of the return," thereby making a mockery of the exhortations of one true pope after another for such a return of non-Catholics to the true Church.
Ratzinger/Benedict embraces concilairism's definition of "religious liberty" as he praises the nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by Pope Pius VI in
Brief Quod aliquantum
, March 10, 1791, Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right
Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas
, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos
, August 15, 1832, and by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura
, December 8, 1864.)
Ratzinger/Benedict endorses the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and rejects the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.
Ratzinger/Benedict has entered two mosque and two synagogues, engaging in acts of apostasy and blasphemy as he, who believes himself to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, has permitted himself to be treated as an inferior as he has treated places of false worship that are hideous to God as worthy of respect, thereby scandalizing His little ones no end.
Ratzinger/Benedict has termed Mount Hiei in Japan, where the adherents of the Tendei sect of Buddhism, worship their devils, as "sacred," a term he used to describe the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem on May 12, 2009.
Joseph Ratzinger has long rejected the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called "New Theology, the subject of an article, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones,
on a Society of Saint Pius X website that may well "disappear"--along with other "damaging" citations that will have to be removed as part of the conciliar process of "purification of memory"--once a formal "regularization" takes place. (See also: Attempting to Coerce Perjury
Ratzinger/Benedict holds to a view of the Doctrine of Justification that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury
Ratzinger/Benedict gave his personal approve to the world premiere of the blasphemous motion picture named The Nativity Story to be held in the conciliar Vatican's "Paul VI Audience Hall."
Mind you, this is only a partial listing of the many and seemingly never-ending ways in which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has offended God and harmed souls, a listing that one will never find on the RORATE CÆLI blogspot.
This partial listing, however, of the ways seems not to faze those associated with the Rorate Caeli blogspot nor does it seem to faze Monsignor Bartolucci, described on the RORATE CÆLI site as a "admirer" of the false "pontiff." An "admirer er" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI? An "admirer"?
Does God admire a man who esteems the symbols of false religions and who speaks of their nonexistent "ability" to "contribute" to the building of the "better world?
Does God admire a man who publicly treats Talmudic Judaism as though it is a valid means of salvation for its adherents?
Does God admire a man who publicly rejects the "ecumenism of the return"? Does God admire a man who calls mosques "jewels" that "stand out across of the face of earth"?
Does God admire a man who esteems the false religions of the Orient, such as Buddhism, that were condemned in the harshest terms possible by saints such as Saint Francis Xavier (see examples of Saint Francis's condemnation of Buddhism and other pagan superstitions as quoted in Always Happy to Make Room for Baal and His Friends).
If God does not, and He does not, admire these things, then how can one "admire" Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?
Moreover, Monsignor Bartolucci's interview, carried in its entirely on the Rorate Caeli blogspot, where you can read it for yourselves, indicates that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service has what he termed as "deficiencies." With all due respect to Monsignor Bartolucci--and to those, including several presbyters known to us personally who function without the approbation of conciliar officials, who insist that the Novus Ordo has deficiencies or is "evil," I have this to say: Keep trying to get it right as the Catholic Church can never give us any liturgical rite that is in the least bit defective. The notion that she, the spotless Mystical Bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, can give us liturgical rites that are "deficient" or that serve as incentives to impiety was anathematized by the Twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent:
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)
I hope that Monsignor Bartolucci and others, including non-sedevacantist presbyters who call the Novus Ordo evil, take a good, hard look at this decree from the Council of Trent. Their position has been thoroughly anathematized. The words of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, written under the infallible protection of God the Holy Ghost, applied to Protestants who believed that the Catholic Mass was a man-made invention that as an offense against God. They apply as well to Catholics who assert that the Catholic Church can give us any liturgical rite that is defective in any way. This is impossible.
As correct as he is about the glory of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo service, thus making it more difficult for hard-core "true believers" in the Novus Ordo service such as James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead and others of the Catholic United for the Faith mentality to continue their blind criticism of anyone who expresses publicly the views about the "Mass of Paul VI" such as those made by Monsignor Bartolucci (and anything that makes life difficult for the longtime defenders of the Novus Ordo travesty who are also know-nothings about the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is certainly quite welcome), the former Maestro of the Sistine Chapel is quite tragically mistaken to contend that a liturgical rite of the Catholic Church can be in any way deficient. It cannot. This view was, as noted above, anathematized by the Council of Trent.
Monsignor Bartolucci also makes it appear as though Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a defender of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, a man who was possessed of a "convinced and moving traditionalism," which was not the case at all. That the first in the most recent line of false "pontiffs" was attached to some of the accoutrements of Tradition takes nothing away from his thorough and complete endorsement of the agenda of Modernism (See the well-researched and well-documented work of Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, that can be found in an online version of their scholarly--and not sensationalized--book, Tumultuous Times: The Twenty General Councils of the Catholic. This link will take you directly to the pages about Roncalli, although it may take a while for all of the pages to load on your screen, and you will need to scroll back to page 295 for the beginning of the book's discussion of Roncalli. The link above, for whatever reason, takes you first to page 305. The documentation about Roncalli's Modernism provided in Tumultuous Times is devastating. Tumultuous Times also dispels the disinformation provided on the website referenced at the beginning of this commentary concerning "heretical" popes. Some material from Tumultuous Times dealing with the myth of "heretical" popes is found in an appendix in
Story Time in Econe). Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominci Gregis that some Modernists may have an attachment to traditional liturgical ceremonies, an attachment that takes nothing away from their being Modernists:
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. 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.
No matter Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's desire to have the Vexilla Regis sung on Good Friday as the Blessed Sacrament was taken away from the Repository to the altar for the priest's Communion, no one who is in the least bit intellectually honest can claim that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was, as Monsignor Bartolucci asserted in his interview, possessed of a view of the Sacred Liturgy that was one of "a convinced and moving traditionalism." This is patently false, an absolute absurdity that would laughable were it not for the sacred nature of the worship of the true God of Revelation. It was Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII who made the following changes to a liturgy that had been altered initially, as Monsignor Bartolucci noted and rightly condemned, in the 1950s, staring with the Holy Week changes devised by Annibale Bugnini and Ferdinando Antonelli:
At last we come to "the liturgy of John XXIII," more properly called that of "middle Bugnini." The following changes were instituted in the Mass, the Divine Office and the Calendar:
1. The lives of the saints at Matins were reduced to brief summaries.
2. The lessons from the Fathers of the Church were reduced to the briefest possible passages, with the somewhat naive wish that the clergy would continue to nourish their souls with patristic writings on their own.
3. The solitary recitation of the Divine Office was no longer held to be public prayer, and thus the sacred greeting Dominus vobiscum was suppressed.
4. The Last Gospel was suppressed on more occasions.
5. The proper conclusion of the Office Hymns was suppressed.
6. Many feast days are abolished, as being redundant or not "historical, for example: (a) The Finding of the Holy Cross. (b) St. John Before the Latin Gate. (c) The Apparition of St. Michael. (d) St. Peter's Chair at Antioch. (e) St. Peter's Chains, etc.
7. During the Council, the principle of the unchanging Canon of the Mass was destroyed with the addition of the name of St. Joseph.
8. The Confiteor before Communion was suppressed.
It is to be noted that the "Liturgy of John XXIII” was in vigor for all of three years, until it came to its logical conclusion with the promulgation of the Conciliar Decree on the Liturgy — also the work of Bugnini. (See His Excellency Bishop Daniel L. Dolan,
Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass and
The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared.)
Father Francisco Ricossa described what he called the "anti-liturgical heresies" extant in Roncalli/John XXIII's liturgical changes:
Pius XII succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:
As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.
While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity."
Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.
The Revolution Advances
John XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'
On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956 into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. "We have reached the decision," he writes, "that the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman Missal must not be delayed any longer."
In this framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a climate which was already "Conciliar," the Breviary and Missal of John XXIII were born. They formed a "Liturgy of transition" destined to last — as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II.
The "Antiliturgical Heresy" in the John XXIII Reform
We have already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as "liturgical heresy" the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John XXIII.
Since John XXIII's innovations touched the Breviary as well as the Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the "flavor" and scope of the innovations.
1. Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the Breviary in 1736, "reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to make it shorter." In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture. Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.
2. Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. "The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect," said Dom Guéranger, "is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from Holy Scripture." While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII's Breviary suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.
3. Removal of saints' feasts from Sunday. Dom Gueranger gives the Jansenists' position: "It is their [the Jansenists'] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be 'degraded' by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection — shouldn't they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?"
John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.
4. Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: "The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church's calendar with the inclusion' of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!"
John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to "Calvinist principles."
Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)
Anyone, including those who are "moderators" of various websites, who contends that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a "friend" of maintaining Tradition in the Sacred Liturgy is either intellectually dishonest or sadly misinformed. Angelo Roncalli was steeped in Modernism throughout his priesthood, supporting, as Father Ricossa noted in his article, false ecumenism and principles of The Sillon, which were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, and are in point of truth the very building blocks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Roncalli was, at the very least, sympathetic to Communism and, departing from the consistent teaching and pastoral praxis of the Catholic Church, he, as "John XXIII," stated that error did not need to be condemned:
In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.
The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.
Contemporary Repudiation Of Godlessness
Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.
A Loving Mother
The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children. To the human race oppressed by so many difficulties, she says what Peter once said to the poor man who begged an alms: "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, that I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk." In other words it is not corruptible wealth, nor the promise of earthly happiness, that the Church offers the world today, but the gifts of divine grace which, since they raise men up to the dignity of being sons of God, are powerful assistance and support for the living of a more fully human life. She unseals the fountains of her life-giving doctrine, so that men, illumined by the light of Christ, will understand their true nature and dignity and purpose. Everywhere, through her children, she extends the frontiers of Christian love, the most powerful means of eradicating the seeds of discord, the most effective means of promoting concord, peace with justice, and universal brotherhood. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII 's Opening Address)
"But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord"? Behold the proliferation of error and confusion and ambiguity and uncertainty that has taken place as a result of this benign view of error that was expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who was under suspicion of heresy during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.
This proliferation of error is so pronounced and so widespread in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the average Catholic, noting, of course, exceptions here and there, has become so very accustomed to apostasy that he is incapable of recognizing that is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, for a Catholic to enter into a place of false worship and then to praise that place of diabolical rites as "sacred" and to praise the "values" held by the adherents of that false religion.
Very few Catholics have expressed any sense of outrage for the honor and majesty and glory of God in the wake of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's calling a mosque in Jordan as a "jewel" that stands out on "the face of the earth" and in the wake of his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, taking off his shoes to enter the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and calling this place that is hideous in the sight of God as "sacred." These Catholics have come to accept such acts of apostasy and sacrilege as "natural" and "normal," if not actual "obligations" required of Christian charity so as to demonstrate to all men of "good will" that a "loving God" does not make distinctions between people who have different beliefs about Him. I know of only a handful of Catholics who expressed publicly any outrage at all for the honor and majesty and glory of God after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII played an important role in bringing this all about as he elevated the man he intended to be his immediate successor in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Giovanni Montini, to the cardinalate of this false church on December 15, 1958, less than two months after his "election" at the head of what we know realize is the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the same day that he appointed another priest, the future "John Paul I," who wanted to see the "good" in various errors, Father Albino Luciani, as the bishop of the Diocese of Vittorio, Veneto, Italy, consecrating Luciani as a true bishop on the Feast Saint John the Evangelist on December 27, 1958. Although it is certainly true that Pope Pius XII put many of the key players in the conciliar revolution in positions of prominence, it is also true that Roncalli/John XXIII wasted no time at all in promoting these key players to the conciliar college of cardinals so that they could solidify the revolution he planned to initiate, a revolution that has devastated so many millions upon millions of souls.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII appointed one of the chief fathers of the New Theology, condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Father Henri de Lubac, in 1960 to the preparatory commission that paved the way for the "Second" Vatican Council, appointing him as well as a "peritus" (expert) to the false council. Angelo Roncalli/John XIII as a defender of doctrinal orthodoxy? Don't believe this insidious lie for one moment no matter whose popular website on which it happens to be spread over and over and over again.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII authorized Eugene Cardinal Tisserant to act on a proposal made by the then Cardinal Montini to enter into negotiations with representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to procure representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church as "observers" at the "Second" Vatican Council. The price for the presence of these "observers" was silence about Communism at the council (see
The Council of Metz). Angelo Roncalli/John XIII as a defender of doctrinal orthodoxy? Don't believe this insidious lie for one moment no matter whose popular website on which it happens to be spread over and over and over again.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII praised the Protestant syncretist Roger Schutz, who was placed in "Heaven" by Ratzinger/Benedict almost immediately after Schutz's murder on Tuesday, August 16, 2005, by calling the syncretist center of Taize, France, as "that little springtime. Father Didier Bonneterre included this telling sentence in his book on the cast of characters, including Roncalli, who used the Liturgical Movement as the means to enshrine false ecumenism:
After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visit Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, "It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize." (Father Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. p 101.)
More to the point, however, was that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a firm believer in the "new ecclesiology," that heresy that considers Protestant sects as part of the "Church of Christ," a view he outlined to Schutz himself shortly before he, Roncalli/John XXIII, had to answer to God for his multiple apostasies at the moment of his Particular Judgment on June 3, 1963:
Q. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development?
A. Father Alois (Roger Schutz's successor of Taize): "He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary. After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands, 'The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always bigger and bigger.' The pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him: you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what he did. (RORATE CÆLI)
Don't believe anyone who claims that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was a friend of anything other than Modernism, no less of sound doctrine! The mere fact that he wanted Latin maintained in the Sacred Liturgy does not undo his words and actions that were contrary to the Faith, words and actions that caught the attention of the Holy See when he was a young priest:
According to information that has come my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [whose book, History of the Early Church, had been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and used in Roncalli's seminary lectures] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of Tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences. (Letter from quoted in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times, p. 297)
Does anyone want to contend that Roncalli/John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963, which was a harbinger of the "Second" Vatican Council's embrace of the falsehood of "religious liberty," was a document championing the Social Reign of Christ the King? It most certainly was not such at all.
Undaunted, however, some defenders of conciliarism are, as evidenced in an article on the Rorate Caeli blogspot on a new book about the "Second" Vatican Council that is said to be on the desk of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, continuing to assert that there was "some" Modernism sprinkled in with Catholicism at this false council. Keep trying, keep trying.
Catholicism, as Pope Gregory XVI noted in Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834, can never be tainted with the slightest tarnish of error:
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.
The Catholic Church can give us nothing that is erroneous, nothing that is ambiguous, nothing that in the least suggests any contradiction of her perennial teaching. Among so many others, Pope Pius XI made this clear in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
No one who defects knowingly from a single proposition in the Deposit of Faith can remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. A la carte Catholicism is wrong for those Catholics who support one moral evil (abortion, contraception, perversity, usury). A la carte Catholicism is wrong for putative "popes" and "bishops" who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and and reject the Church's official philosophy, Scholasticism, and support most brazenly movements (false ecumenism) and propositions (religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the new ecclesiology) that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
It is always useful to remind readers of the simple truth that no one can hold to a single proposition that has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church and remain within her maternal bosom:
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). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
It is not enough to point to the times that Angelo Roncalli or Giovanni Montini or Albino Luciani and Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger have written and spoken in accord with Catholic orthodoxy. One is not a Catholic by holding simply to a certain number of the truths of the Catholic Faith. One must adhere to each of the truths of the Faith without any exception and, as sworn to by each of these men in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, as
"handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport," never once asserting in any way, shape, or form that any doctrine of the Catholic Church can be
"believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way." Anyone who can contend that the conciliar "popes" have faithful to The Oath Against Modernism that they took at various points in their priesthoods is willfully intellectual dishonest or insane.
Pope Saint Pius X, who promulgated The Oath Against Modernism, explained the Modernists are so double-minded, so full of contradiction and complexity that they can sound perfectly orthodox on some occasions while advancing condemned propositions on other occasions:
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.
This is a perfect description of each of the conciliar "pontiffs" who have used their false "pontificates" to advance the precepts of the conciliar revolution as they have done and said things in violation of the First and Second Commandments that offend God greatly and blaspheme the memories of so millions of saints who gave up their very lives rather than to do so or say the things that they, the false "pontiffs," have done and said with such utter impunity.
The way out of this mess runs through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a truth that the operators of that aforementioned website featuring those sometimes accurate and sometimes skewed new digests seem to disparage, at least just a little bit, now and again. Let me, therefore, repeat the simple truth that God Himself has given us Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan as the way of out the mess caused by Modernism and Modernity. Those who disparage the essential nature of the Rosary, which was emphasized by Our Lady herself in her apparitions in the Cova da Iria between May 13, 1917, and October 13, 1917, are doing the work of the adversary, who hates the Rosary and has gone to great lengths to frustrate the realization of Our Lady's Fatima Message as the errors of Russia continue to spread before our very eyes, especially at the present time in the administration of Barack Hussein Obama.
Only fools ignore or denigrate Our Lady's Fatima Message, as I pointed out two years ago in Two Last Chances and
Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own.
The saints have taught us clearly that we cannot get to Heaven without devotion to Our Lady. Saint Louis de Montfort noted this in his True Devotion to Mary:
The pious and learned Jesuit, Suarez, Justus Lipsius, a devout and erudite theologian of Louvain, and many others have proved incontestably that devotion to our Blessed Lady is necessary to attain salvation. This they show from the teaching of the Fathers, notably St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, deacon of Edessa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure. Even according to Oecolampadius and other heretics, lack of esteem and love for the Virgin Mary is an infallible sign of God's disapproval. On the other hand, to be entirely and genuinely devoted to her is a sure sign of God's approval."
Stick with the saints, my friends, in their exhortations to follow Our Lady to Heaven. Pray as many Rosaries each day as your states-in-life permit. It is indeed very telling that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict rarely makes any public exhortations to pray Our Lady's Rosary. He made none while in the United States of America from April 15, 2008, to April 20, 2008. He made none during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel between May 8, 2009, and May 15, 20009. Ratzinger/Benedict has even admitted that he does not pray the Rosary every day, praying it when has time to do so. Such is not the mind and the heart of a true Catholic who sees in the Rosary, which was was given by Our Lady to Saint Dominic to fight the Albigensian heresy, our weapon against all heresies and against the onslaughts the world, the flesh, and the devil in our own daily lives.
Pope Leo XIII believed that Our Lady's Rosary was so essential to personal and social order that he wrote twelve encyclical letters on It. These words, taken from his 1893 encyclical on the Rosary, Laetitiae Sanctae, should put to rest the claims of anyone who seeks in the slightest to disparage the absolutely essential nature of Our Lady's Rosary in these our days, and Pope Leo XIII wrote Laetitiae Sanctae twenty-four years before the Miracle of the Sun:
These considerations will explain what We have already laid down concerning the fruitful advantages which are to be derived from the use of the Rosary, and the healing power which this devotion possesses for the evils of the age and the fatal sores of society. These advantages, as we may readily conceive, will be secured in a higher and fuller measure by those who band themselves together in the sacred Confraternity of the Rosary, and who are thus more than others united by a special and brotherly bond of devotion to the Most Holy Virgin. In this Confraternity, approved by the Roman Pontiffs, and enriched by them with indulgences and privileges, they possess their own rule and government, hold their meetings at stated times, and are provided with ample means of leading a holy life and of laboring for the good of the community. They are, are so to speak, the battalions who fight the battle of Christ, armed with His Sacred Mysteries, and under the banner and guidance of the Heavenly Queen. How faithfully her intercession is exercised in response to their prayers, processions, and solemnities is written in the whole experience of the Church not less than in the splendor of the victory of Lepanto.
It is, therefore, to be desired that renewed zeal should be called forth in the founding, enlarging, and directing of these confraternities, and that not only by the sons of St. Dominic, to whom by virtue of their Order a leading part in this Apostolate belongs, but by all who are charged with the care of souls, and notable in those places in which the Confraternity has not yet been canonically established. We have it especially at heart that those who are engaged in the sacred field of the missions, whether in carrying the Gospel to barbarous nations abroad, or in spreading it amongst the Christian nations at home, should look upon this work as especially their own. If they will make it the subject of their preaching, We cannot doubt that there will be large numbers of the faithful of Christ who will readily enroll themselves in the Confraternity, and who will earnestly endeavor to avail themselves of those spiritual advantages of which We have spoken, and in which consist the very meaning and motive of the Rosary. From the Confraternities, the rest of the faithful will receive the example of greater esteem and reverence for the practice of the Rosary, and they will be thus encouraged to reap from it, as We heartily desire that they may, the same abundant fruits for their souls' salvation.
This then is the hope, which, amid the manifold evils which beset society, brightens, consoles, and supports Us. May Mary, the Mother of God and of men, herself the authoress and teacher of the Rosary, procure for Us its happy fulfillment. It will be your part, Venerable Brethren, to provide that by your efforts Our words and Our wishes may go forth on their mission of good for the prosperity of families and the peace of peoples. (Pope Leo XIII, Laetitiae Sanctae, September 8, 1893.)
Every extra moment we spend before the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament and every extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we pray will help us to be more and more conformed to the likeness of Our Divine Redeemer, Who permitted His own Most Sacred Heart to be wounded by our sins during His Passion and Death.at the same time He permitted our sins to pierce His Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart with the Fourth through the Seventh Swords of Sorrow.
We must always remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever crosses--personal, social and ecclesiastical--that we are asked to carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and betrayal, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.
Remember the words of the late William C. Koneazny:
"Our Lady will come and throw the bums out!" Yes, Bill, the final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And don't any of you who read this website pay any attention to those who tell you differently. Our Lady will convert or crush the conciliar revolutionaries. The final victory belongs to her Immaculate Heart. Never doubt this for one moment. She told us so at Fatima. And anyone who thinks he knows better than the Mother of God is worse than a fool.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
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 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 Philip Benizi, pray for us.
Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints