Mainstreaming the Oldies
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Cultural trends that begin on the fringes often find themselves getting "mainstreamed" over the course of time. This is what happened with the evil words and sounds of "rock and roll," whose appeal at first was limited to only a certain segment of the population. One did not hear such diabolical music designed to disturb the soul and to agitate the passions in supermarkets and restaurants and sporting arenas in the 1950s and 1960s. Although it is true that William A. Shea Municipal Stadium was the site in 1964 of a "concert" by the fomenters of social revolution called "The Beatles," one never heard such wretched sounds from the public address system at Shea Stadium at baseball games until 1980. And it was around that time that there began to be what I call the "creep" of this vile form of spiritual assault upon the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross began to make its way into some restaurants and other public facilities.
What was once confined to the fringes has been "mainstreamed" rather steadily in the past three decades. The situation is so ludicrous that young people steeped in the pollution of these abominable sounds from Hell think that the "oldies" are examples of "classical music"! We have been told on several occasions in recent years that a particular restaurant plays "classical music" when the truth turned out to be that what is called "classic 'rock'" is what was featured in the facility. What a sad state of affairs that a soul polluting, culture destroying noise from Hell is now considered to be "classical" music.
Alas, such is the logic of evil in a pluralistic society. Evil is able to advance by various increments as most citizens, steeped in the throes of religious indifferentism and having no sense of the honor and majesty of God or the good of the souls for whom He offered up His life to the His Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth, shrug their shoulders, believing that it is always best to "live and let live," diverted as they are by a variety of bread and circuses that keep them from considering seriously how the things of this life look in light of First and Last Things as they must be understood according to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church. "What's wrong with it?" such people ask plaintively. "Why shouldn't we go along with the tide? Things change, don't they?"
A world steeped in the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry is thus unable to resist cultural currents that appeal to the vagaries of fallen human nature, especially to the desire for ever greater indulgence of self at the expense of growth in sanctity. It is far, far easier for fallen human nature to indulge itself than to deny itself, which is why the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service has so much attraction to older Catholics, both priests and laity, who did not "like" the "rigors" of the past. Indeed, the desire to indulge oneself in manner of wordily pleasures, whether material or sensual, and to believe that one can be 'saved" no matter what one believes or how one acts in his life is one of the natural consequences of the whole ethos of Protestantism itself that has served as the ready seed ground for Judeo-Masonry in the world and for Modernism in the life of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Evil trends that advance first by increments wind up advancing by leaps and bounds over the course of time.
Much the same sort of phenonenon of "mainstreaming" evil has been occurring in the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the past fifty years. Apostasies and novelties and innovations that have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church have been "mainstreamed" into the life of Catholics. This has occurred at the "papal" level as false "pontiffs" have spoken and acted in ways that have defied the anathemas of the past and/or have blasphemed God and defamed His greater honor and glory and majesty. Very few Catholics have seemed to care about the mainstreaming of anathematized propositions and open displays of "papal" respect being shown to false religions, believing that the "pope" "knows" what he is doing as they immerse themselves ever more merrily and uncritical in the popular culture.
This mainstreaming of evil has occurred, most importantly, at the diocesan and parish levels as ever-increasing doses of profane and banal and sacrilegious elements have worked their way into the Novus Ordo service, which is in se offensive to God and harmful to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Articles of the Faith are denied from the pulpit. Open blasphemies against Our Lady are uttered and tolerated at the highest levels of diocesan authority in the conciliar structures. The inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is questioned or denied. The ideology of evolutionism is taught as a given beyond question in so many places in the conciliar world. The seriousness of personal sin is denigrated. Popular culture is extolled, almost never criticized. Modesty of attire is not enforced in churches under conciliar control. The chapel veil for women? That "anachronism" is rejected as necessary even in places where the Motu Mass is offered (or simulated) in the conciliar structures.
There has been a wholesale mainstreaming of novelties and abominations that have eviscerated the Faith in the lives of so many hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide. Can anyone say "World Youth Day"?
The false "pontificate" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is all about "mainstreaming the oldies," his oldies, meaning the "insights" contained in the books that he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council, including Introduction to Christianity and Theological Highlights of Vatican II, as well as that golden oldie, Principles of Catholic Theology, as the "gold standard" for the "correct" interpretation of the "Council" as the "faith" meets "modern man" in the "complexities" of his contemporary existence. Anyone who thinks that Ratzinger/Benedict has abandoned his former writings because he has permitted a wider offering/simulation of a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is engaged in the most irresponsible form of self-deception. He is telling us in his own words that this is not the case.
Consider the following report from the Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 7 JUN 2008 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, the Holy Father received participants in the sixth European Symposium of University Professors, which is being held in Rome from 4 to 7 June on the theme: "Broadening the Horizons of Reason. Prospects for Philosophy".
The symposium has been promoted by university professors in Rome and organised by the Office for Pastoral Care in Universities of the Vicariate of Rome, in collaboration with regional and provincial institutions and the local city authorities.
In opening his address to them the Pope mentioned the fact that this year marks the tenth anniversary of John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et ratio", and he recalled how when that document was published "fifty professors of philosophy in Roman universities ... expressed their gratitude to the Pope with a declaration underlining the importance of re-launching the study of philosophy in universities and schools".
"The events of the years that have passed since the publication of the Encyclical have", said the Holy Father, "delineated more clearly the historical and cultural stage onto which philosophical research is called to enter. Indeed, the crisis of modernity is not a symptom of the decline of philosophy; on the contrary, philosophy must embark upon new lines of research in order to understand the true nature of that crisis".
"Modernity is not simply a historically-datable cultural phenomenon; in reality it requires a new focus, a more exact understanding of the nature of man".
Benedict XVI indicated that since the beginning of his pontificate he had received various suggestions "from men and women of our time", and that "in the light of these I have decided to offer a research proposal which I feel may arouse interest in a relaunch of philosophy and of its unique role within the modern academic and cultural world".
Quoting his own book, "Introduction to Christianity", he said: "The Christian faith has made a clear choice: against the gods of religion for the God of the philosophers, in other words against the myth of custom and for the truth of being". And he went on: "This affirmation ... is still fully relevant in the historical-cultural context in which we now live. Indeed, only on the basis of this premise - which is historical and theological at one and the same time - is it possible to respond to the new expectations of philosophy. The risk that religion, even the Christian religion, be surreptitiously manipulated, is very real even today".
"The proposal to 'Broaden the Horizons of Reason' should" he proceeded, "be understood as a request for a new openness towards the reality to which human beings in their uni-totality are called, overcoming old prejudices and reductive viewpoints in order to open the way to a new understanding of modernity".
"The new dialogue between faith and reason which is needed today cannot come about in the terms and the ways it did in the past", said the Pope. "If it does not want to see itself reduced to the status of sterile intellectual exercise, it must start from the current real situation of mankind, and upon that build a reflection that embraces man's ontological and metaphysical truth".
In closing, Benedict XVI referred to the need to "promote high-profile academic centres in which philosophy can enter into dialogue with other disciplines, in particular with theology, to favour new cultural syntheses capable of guiding society". In this context, he expressed the hope that "Catholic academic institutions may be ready to create true cultural laboratories" and he invited the professors to encourage young people "to commit themselves to philosophical studies by facilitating appropriate initiatives" to guide them in that direction.(Antipope Highlights the Vital Role of Philosophy.)
Apart from the simple little fact that there is no such thing as "modern man" and that Ratzinger's whole world view of this mythical entity is but a projection of his own inability or, more accurately, unwillingness to "relate" to the "ways" in which philosophy approached faith and reason in the "past," one sees in this allocution a full-throated endorsement of Introduction to Christianity, proving once again, as he himself said in an interview with reporters for a German television station two years ago, that he is the same now as he has been throughout the course of his priesthood:
I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio
Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger is the same now as Benedict XVI as he has been throughout his Modernist life. His rejection of Thomism, which is essential to his embrace of the New Theology, leads him to reject the very nature of God as He has revealed Himself to be. Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that God has revealed a Deposit of Faith to the Catholic Church that must be understood in exactly the same way at all times and in all ages. Truth is capable of containing contradiction and paradox. Truth is so complex and capable of distortion by the human mind, Ratzinger believes, that it is never apprehended adequately, never expressed perfectly. As has been noted so many times on this site, such a view is contrary to natural reason and has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. What does this matter to a man who has stated very publicly that the authority of the Catholic Church has been wrong in the past and that the "true meaning" of past pronouncements must be discerned in light of subsequent developments.
In addition to the usual quotations from Ratzinger's works--and from his allocutions as Benedict XVI--that have been used on this site to prove this very point, Ratzinger's Modernist views were on display in an explanation he gave in 1976 of a document issued in 1972 by the International Theological Commission on which he served at the time:
In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
This is to say, of course, that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, is capable of deceiving the Church, by the use of language that is capable of being misunderstood by succeeding generations even though it may have been "clear" to an earlier generation at the time the language was formulated. Does anyone need to reminded that he swore in The Oath Against Modernism nearly fifty-seven years ago, prior to his ordination as a priest on June 29, 1951, to reject this proposition? Does anyone need to be reminded of Pope Saint Pius X's prescient condemnation of this very view contained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1,1910.)
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts." On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation." (Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Was Pope Saint Pius X wrong? He would have to be for Father Joseph Ratzinger to have been correct in Introduction to Christianity and for Benedict XVI to have been correct in his infamous Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005, in which he discussed understanding the Faith in terms of "continuity and discontinuity." The magisterial authority of the Catholic Church would have had to have failed in its mission to understand the nature of God and of His dogmatic truth for Ratzinger to be correct. This is impossible.
The same Pope Saint Pius X explained the essential nature of Thomism as means of protecting the integrity of the Catholic Faith:
For just as the opinion of certain ancients is to be rejected which maintains that it makes no difference to the truth of the Faith what any man thinks about the nature of creation, provided his opinions on the nature of God be sound, because error with regard to the nature of creation begets a false knowledge of God; so the principles of philosophy laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and inviolably observed, because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as is most congruent with the Faith; of refuting all the errors of all the ages, and of enabling man to distinguish clearly what things are to be attributed to God and to God alone….
St. Thomas perfected and augmented still further by the almost angelic quality of his intellect all this superb patrimony of wisdom which he inherited from his predecessors and applied it to prepare, illustrate and protect sacred doctrine in the minds of men. Sound reason suggests that it would be foolish to neglect it and religion will not suffer it to be in any way attenuated. And rightly, because, if Catholic doctrine is once deprived of this strong bulwark, it is useless to seek the slightest assistance for its defense in a philosophy whose principles are either common to the errors of materialism, monism, pantheism, socialism and modernism, or certainly not opposed to such systems. The reason is that the capital theses in the philosophy of St Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church. . . . (Doctoris Angelici, quoted in James Larson's
Article 11: A Confusion of Loves.)
The rejection of Thomism is at the heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's whole theology. No Catholic is free to reject Thomism, to consider it ill-equipped to explain the Faith to "modern man" or to effect a "reconciliation" between the Faith and the "insights" of contemporary science, which is nothing other "scientism" for the most part, a pseudo-science, a junk science that is premised upon an acceptance of the disproved ideology of evolutionism. And it is this belief in evolutionary principles that is at the very heart of the New Theology that is being "mainstreamed" by Ratzinger/Benedict at present and that subjects the Catholic Faith to never-ending "reinterpretations" as each succeeding generation of "modern men" need to have it expressed in their own unique "language."
Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominci Gregis that the Modernists recognize Saint Thomas Aquinas as their enemy whom they must reject n their efforts to redefine the Faith:
Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''
This applies directly to what Ratzinger/Benedict is doing at present to redefine the very meaning of the word "Tradition" in order to enfold within it the principles of the New Theology.
Pope Pius XII explained in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, that the New Theology is indeed founded on the rejection of Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Schoolmen:
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
One will see in Mr. Larson's article, linked above, that Joseph Ratzinger's views of nature and being and truth are indeed in line with the schismatic and heretical Eastern Orthodox, not with the Catholic Faith, especially as taught by Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent. It is absolutely essential, therefore, for Ratzinger to seek to "mainstream" his own works in behalf of making a universal acceptance of the New Theology within the counterfeit church of conciliarism the distinguishing characteristic of his "pontificate." Thomism must be disparaged at every turn by the use of various allusions and euphemisms.
Obviously, this is nothing new. The rejection of the "rigors" of Scholasticism was at the foundation of the rejection of traditional forms of catechetics in schools as students were taught vague notions and outright opinions in the place of Christian doctrine. Even the phrase "Confraternity of Christian Doctrine" had to be replaced by the term "religious education." Ratzinger/Benedict, however, is making sure that Thomism is eclipsed once and for all, which is why he wants the New Theology taught in all seminaries, including those attached to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and which operate under "Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei."
Apostasies have abounded as a result of the rejection of Scholasticism. The situation is so absurd the newly appointed president of the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue," Jean-Lous "Cardinal" Tauran, gave an interview that is now posted on an American website in which he stated that "all religions are equal." Please note I described this man as "newly appointed," which means he was appointed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself. Take a look at this apostasy, please:
Interviewer: There was a sense that Islam mustn't monopolise the proceedings?
Tauran: Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't get the impression there are first class religions and second class religions.(Interview with Terrasanta.net, a Website of the Holy Land Review.)
I will concede that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI might not use that exact language himself in describing the "religions" of the world. His language is usually couched in the sort of conciliarspeak that says we must profess Our Lord while at the same time holding in respect what is "good and true" in other religions. Indeed, his approach comes straight out of Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965, from the "Second" Vatican Council" and is quite similar to the prepared remarks that "Cardinal" Tauran gave in London, England, on May 28, 2008 (the speech ended with a reference to one of the New Theology's primogenitors, Karl Rahner,
Cardinal Tauran's Address at University of London) that are replete with expressions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "respect" for the religions of the world, heedless of the simple truth that there is one true religion, Catholicism, and every other "religion' is hateful in the sight of God. Even though he might not use the exact language chosen by Tauran in an interview, he chose Tauran, who has been given a red hat in the conciliar church despite believing that "all religions are equal." They are not equal in the eyes of God, and they are not meant to be equal in the eyes of the civil authority.
Ratzinger himself has, however, walked into two synagogues, one mosque and has esteemed the symbols of false religions, each time offending God grievously. He has also referred to Mount Hiei in Japan, upon which the Tendei sect of Buddhism practices its diabolical beliefs, as "sacred." This kind of confusion about Who God is and what constitutes His greater honor and glory and majesty does not exist in the mind of a Catholic trained in the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. It is that simple.
All manner of apostasy has been "mainstreamed" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Souls have been devastated as a result. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI played a major role in shaping the ethos of conciliarism in the years before the "Second" Vatican Council. He is concluding his life's work at present by attempting to make sure that future generations are Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will be "formed" according to the paradigm of paradox and contradiction and uncertainty and confusion represented by the New Theology that shaped his own mind as a young seminarian and has so thoroughly deformed his view of God Himself and His Deposit of Faith.
We can have no part in this "mainstreaming" of Joseph Ratzinger's "oldies." No part at all. We must cling to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds. And we must be absolutely calm in the midst of the storm that besets us, recognizing that this era of apostasy and betrayal is unfolding within God's Holy Providence and that we have been given His Most Blessed Mother to help us get back home to Him in Heaven by having access to the true sacraments administered at the hands of true priests. This means that we have work to do to support the Faith as we seek to sanctify and to save our souls as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., the great champion of and martyr for Christ the King when Our Lady's country, Mexico, was undergoing a particularly vicious outbreak of Masonic violence against the true Church, violence that had the full support of the government of the United States of America in both Democrat and Republican administrations, wrote the following prayer that should give us encouragement in these our times:
Does our life become from day to day more painful, more oppressive, more replete with afflictions? Blessed be He a thousand times who desires it so. If life be harder, love makes it also stronger, and only this love, grounded on suffering, can carry the Cross of my Lord Jesus Christ. Love without egotism, without relying on self, but enkindling in the depth of the heart an ardent thirst to love and suffer for all those around us: a thirst that neither misfortune nor contempt can extinguish... I believe, O Lord; but strengthen my faith... Heart of Jesus, I love Thee; but increase my love. Heart of Jesus, I trust in Thee; but give greater vigor to my confidence. Heart of Jesus, I give my heart to Thee; but so enclose it in Thee that it may never be separated from Thee. Heart of Jesus, I am all Thine; but take care of my promise so that I may be able to put it in practice even unto the complete sacrifice of my life.
Our Lady gave her dear son, Saint Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order of Preachers, her Most Holy Rosary to be a spiritual weapon against heresy. As we pray our Rosaries each day in reparation for our own sins, which have certainly worsened the state of the Church and the world, and for those of the whole world, we must remember that each Rosary we pray well as we reflect upon the mysteries contained therein will be used by Our Lady to combat the heresies of the moment in ways that we may only be able to see and to understand in eternity, please God and by her own maternal intercession that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace.
Concern about our current situation? Of course. Fear? Never. The final victory belongs to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Why do we not trust more fully in this victory as we seek our sure shelter in her own Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart, Which beats as one with her own Immaculate Heart?
Let us all pray to Our Lady for the glorious day when all men around the world will exclaim the words that were uttered by Father Miguel Augustin Pro when he was put to death by the Masonic revolutionaries on November 23, 1927:
Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.