by Thomas A. Droleskey
Singing the Old Songs catalogued just some of the ways in which many of us grasped at any and all signs, no matter how remote, of a "restoration" represented by the nascent "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, especially in the time between the latter's "election" on October 16, 1978, and the blasphemous sacrileges that took place in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986. Many of us were unwilling to look at the evidence that was right in front of use, preferring to be willfully blind as we projected Catholicism into the Modernist mind and heart of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.
As has been pointed out numerous times on this site in recent months, including in Singing the Old Songs itself, enthusiasts of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI are repeating history, having convinced themselves that a "restoration" is under way, signified chiefly by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. No matter the fact that Summorum Pontificum instituted a three year experiment and that Benedict XVI's official spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., has said will result in a "reform of the reform," partisans of Summorum Pontificum choose to ignore even the words of Vatican representatives and well-regarded Vaticanologists that indicate Summorum Pontificum is merely a bridge to convince traditionally-minded Catholics to cease any and all hostilities against the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and to see the "continuity in discontinuity" in the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council and the words and actions of the conciliar and postconciliar "pontiffs."
Consider Father Lombardi's observation, made on July 15, 2007, concerning the transitional nature of the "restoration" that is supposedly represented by Summorum Pontificum:
"Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church."
Sandro Magister, an Italian journalist for Chiesa magazine, wrote on March 7, 2008, that he believed that the true importance of the now infamous "revised" Good Friday Prayer for the Jews for use by the Motu communities was that it was the first instance of effecting what Joseph Ratzinger has long desired: the "reform of the reform:"
From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."
This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)
The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 (and amended in 1962 to reflect the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Roman Canon) was meant to be "transitional" of its nature. It was in place for three years prior to the Ordo Missae of 1965 that went into effect on November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent and the start of the new liturgical year. Although certain of the Motu communities may be permitted to continue an "attachment" to the "1962 Missal" after a "reform of the reform," it is clearly Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's desire to "mainstream" traditionally-minded Catholics into the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Summorum Pontificum is not about any defense of the Catholic Faith whatsoever. Joseph Ratzinger is willing to permit an expression of liturgical "diversity" in the name of aesthetics" as he seeks to silence opposition to the Novus Ordo and to concilairism on the part of traditionally-minded Catholics once and for all.
The "revised" Good Friday Prayer for the Jews is indeed the first of many "little modifications" that will be made to introduce the Novus Ordo's concept of ceaseless change as a regular feature of liturgical life for the Motu communities, to say nothing of Benedict's demand that priests attached to the "extraordinary form" of the "one Roman Rite" be willing to offer the "ordinary form" of the "one Roman Rite," that is, of course, the Novus Ordo itself, thus making a mockery of the resistance to the evil that is the Novus Ordo that was offered by a number of truly courageous older priests in the 1960s and 1970s. It cannot be that these priests were right to resist the Novus Ordo because they saw it as evil (or at least as defective) and that Ratzinger's demand that priests under his control be willing to offer this abomination is just and from God. The older priests of yesteryear were either right or they were wrong. The Novus Ordo is either of God or it is not.
As has been noted on several occasions in the past two months now, the Prior of the Society of Saint Pius X in Mexico, Father Basilio Meramo, offered his own penetrating analysis of Summorum Pontificum that takes into account a keen understanding of the Hegelian mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Sacred Scripture warns us that Satan often transforms himself into an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11:14), that is, as an apparent good, to seduce the faithful. "For the Devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour" (2 Peter 5:8). For this reason, St. Peter exhorts us to be sober and watchful.
Many, if not the great majority, of the defenders of the Traditional Mass and doctrine have seen the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI as a great good, in that it recognized that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. This "recognition" is seen by those holding this "optimistic" view as something like a piece of parched land that would welcome a gently-falling rain after a long drought. And, even more, we see how they are so overcome with gratitude that they are forecasting the most promising vistas for a happy future, of verdant greenery and bright and beautiful blossoms.
But if we analyze the facts dispassionately and in the steady, clear light of the Faith, we see that the beautiful scenery vanishes before our eyes, like the vain and dangerous mirage-like illusion that it is. Nothing could be better or more perspicacious than to recognize as true that the Traditional Mass was never legally abrogated, although it was suppressed in a manner that was an abuse of power, as Archbishop Lefebvre and traditional Catholics have always maintained.
Therefore, the declaration by Benedict XVI affirming that the true Mass was never abolished appears, at first sight, to be a victory. However, after closer examination of the declaration, one perceives both the subtlety and the intelligence of this action. Benedict XVI is attempting by an audacious and effective way to accomplish his most profound and desired goal according to his Modernistic mindset, so that many critics of Modernism have not been able to appreciate fully the vastness of his aims or the subtlety of his strategy.
Benedict XVI, who has a keen and penetrating intellect, intends to legitimize the New Mass by attempting to portray it as a legitimate and faithful development of the ancient Roman rite. To be successful, he had to heal the rupture created by the attempted suppression of the Traditional Mass, first by denying that the Traditional Mass had been abolished. For the Traditional Mass was the faithful expression of the ancient Roman Mass, both in its historical development and in its dogmatic content, promulgated in perpetuity.
Historically, it could not be affirmed that a schismatic break had taken place in the development of the rite, as Joseph Ratzinger declared in his autobiography. But this is in fact what had been declared had happened when the New Mass was introduced, so it was necessary to repair the breach. The second great event that occurred at the beginning of my years at Ratisbon was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, with the almost total prohibition of the Traditional Missal. But I was perplexed by the prohibition of the Traditional Missal, for nothing similar had ever occurred in the history of the liturgy. One cannot speak of a prohibition of the older and, until then, legitimately valid Missal, whose development through the centuries can be traced back all the way to the Sacramentaries of the early Church. This brought about a break in the history of the liturgy, whose consequences could be only tragic (Joseph Ratzinger, Mi Vida, ed. Encuentro, Madrid, 2005, pp. 148-149).
We can see then that, for Cardinal Ratzinger, the historical break cannot be legitimately defended, and this rupture had to be healed, especially given his plan to portray the New Mass as a legitimate continuation and development of the Traditional Missal and as an authentic expression of the Roman Rite of the Mass. With his dialectic, oecumenist mind, he could perceive that it could not be affirmed that the New Missal was a legitimate development of the Roman Rite, if on the other hand it was affirmed that the Traditional Missal was not.
Therefore, if both Missals are legitimate developments of the ancient Roman Rite, then it is incoherent to affirm that the Traditional Missal is prohibited or has been abolished, especially if one wants to pass off the New Mass, described by Archbishop Lefebvre as a Protestantized and bastard rite, as an equally legitimate development and expression of the ancient Roman Rite, as the Traditional Rite indeed was. Which brings us to the ultimate aim of Benedict XVI.
The attempt to reconcile the New Mass with the Traditional Mass is the first step in his plan to bring about a reconciliation between the teachings of Vatican II and the True Faith. He cannot permit a rupture or separation to remain, which would impede his dialectic synthesis, for, as he declared when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: "For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent that a renewal of the liturgical conscience take place that will recognize once again the unity of the history of the liturgy and will understand Vatican II not as a rupture, but as a moment of development" (ibidem). It now becomes clearly manifested what was the real motivation behind the recognition of the fact that the Traditional Missal was never abrogated. It is s the well-known one step backward/two steps forward strategy.
It would be naïve to think that Benedict XVI has taken these measures because he is moving closer to the Traditional Mass and the True Faith. For according to his own words, the aim of these measures is the consolidation and legitimization of the New Mass and of Vatican II. He is attempting this not through brutal and dramatic measures that break with the past, but by using the method of a subtle and gradual evolution [as "Fr." Ratzinger did at Vatican II], he hopes to reconcile and convince all of the opponents of Vatican II and of the New Mass of their legitimacy.
Benedict XVI is proceeding gently, yet firmly, to establish that the New Mass and Vatican II do not constitute a break with the past, either liturgically or doctrinally, but rather that they are the fruit of an organic growth and development within the Church and must be accepted by all of the faithful. Therefore, the Traditional Mass is the expression of an historical past, and the New Mass is the faithful expression of the vital present and the promise of an even more glorious future.
One cannot conceive of a more subtle, clever, and intelligent maneuver that clearly intends to eliminate the forces that compose the Catholic resistance to the innovations and that defend the Traditional Mass and doctrines of the Catholic Church. This elimination is to take place without any dramatic clashes or brutal confrontations, as was attempted in the past, but rather with a warm oecumenical embrace, which will not leave behind any rotting corpses that could mar the irenic and bucolic scenery. This is not how one proceeds in our democratic age, for now we destroy by dialectic substitution. (February 2008 Commentaries on Traditio)
This analysis is thoughtful and absolutely accurate, exposing those who react emotionally to the various elements of traditional attire, whether papal or liturgical, that are sported by the image-conscious Benedict XVI as repeating history by singing the old songs about how some apparently traditional "gesture" represents part of a "quiet revolution" to "restore" the Catholic Church.
To sing these old songs, however, one must be mute when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI blasphemes God by calling a mountain upon which Buddhists worship their devils as "sacred" and when he affords space in the Archbasilica of Saint Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, Italy, for prayer to be offered by Protestant ministers and Orthodox bishops and priests. God loathes false religions. He despises false religions. He seeks their eradication from the face of the earth by means of the unconditional conversion of each one of their adherents to His true Church, the Catholic Church, that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, Pope. No one who affords space in a Catholic church, no less a major Roman archbasilica, for false worship is a friend of God or of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Ah, some might protest, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI baptized a Mohammedan man, Magdi Allam, an outspoken critic of Mohammedanism, in the Novus Ordo version of the Easter Vigil Mass on Saturday, March 22, 2008, at the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican. Isn't this all part of a "quiet revolution" represented by Summorum Pontificum and the wearing of various traditional garments and vestments? In a word, no. Not at all.
The counterfeit church of conciliarism permits those who have a desire to convert to what they believe is the Catholic Church to do so. Such conversions are justified in the name of "religious freedom," however. There is no necessity that each adherent of a particular false religion follow the example of those who are motivated on a subjective level to convert to what they believe is the Catholic Church. Joseph Ratzinger himself wrote this precise thing in Theological Highlights of Vatican II:
The new text describes the relationship between the Church and non-Catholic Christians without speaking of "membership." By shedding this terminological armor, the text acquired a much wider scope. . . . The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality. . . . Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to. . . . A basic unity--of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church--must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it. (Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, pp. 61, 68, quoted in an out-of-print book that contains numerous such quotations contrasting Father Joseph Ratzinger's long held beliefs with the teaching of the Catholic Church.)
The conversion of Magdi Allam, who has, most courageously, continued his own fierce criticisms of Mohammedanism since his baptism, does not represent any "mission" on the part of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to convert Mohammedans. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not motivated by Saint Vincent Ferrer's zeal for the conversion of Jews and Mohammedans. He merely respects the free will choice made by individuals, rejecting that there is a necessity to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith before they die. The conversion of Magdi Allam was thus justified in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano in the name of "religious freedom," not in the name of fidelity to the mission that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles before He Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday to preach the Gospel to all men in all places until the end of time, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano denied that the baptism had been played up, saying it was kept secret until just before the ceremony. It described the baptism as a papal "gesture" to stress "in a gentle and clear way, religious freedom."
"There are no hostile intentions toward a great religion like that of Islam," the newspaper wrote. Muslim scholar denounces Vatican baptism
Yes, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is intent on promoting the conciliar heresy of "religious freedom" with the Mohammedans. He wants to stress the primacy of individual conscience, as he views the matter, over the irrationality of Mohammedanism's coercive measures against the exercise of such conscience. It is his goal to bring Mohammedans into the "big tent" of the One World Church so that they could take their place with the Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and Hindus, who are busily attacking Catholics in India at present, and the Buddhists and others into the merriment produced by the "peaceful coexistence" of world "religions" as they seek to cooperate with each other in the pursuit of "peace," beginning by respecting "religious freedom" in their own countries, something that Mohammedans have absolutely no intention or desire of doing. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI XVI does NOT believe there is an urgent necessity to seek the unconditional conversion of any particular Mohammedan to the true Faith. One must merely respect the "right" of a Mohammedan to do so freely and an in an unimpeded manner if he is so "motivated." This is how religions are supposed to "coexist" in the view of conciliarism. Such is the conciliar mind, not the Catholic mind, which seeks with urgency the unconditional conversion of each person on this planet to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI expressed this desire for "peaceful coexistence" among the "world's religions" in the message he sent to the inter-religious prayer meeting took place on Mount Hiei in Japan eight months ago now:
I am glad to greet you and all the religious leaders gathered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Summit Meeting on Mount Hiei. I wish also to convey my best wishes to Venerable Eshin Watanabe, and to recall your distinguished predecessor as Supreme Head of the Tendai Buddhist Denomination, Venerable Etai Yamada. It was he who, having participated in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on that memorable day of 27 October 1986, initiated the “Religious Summit Meeting” on Mount Hiei in Kyoto in order to keep the flame of the spirit of Assisi burning. I am also happy that Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is able to take part in this meeting.
From the supernatural perspective we come to understand that peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual. Indeed the world’s cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family. As you assemble on the sacred Mount Hiei, representing different religions, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May your prayers and cooperation fill you with God’s peace and strengthen your resolve to witness to the reason of peace which overcomes the irrationality of violence!
Upon you all I invoke an abundance of divine blessings of inspiration, harmony and joy.” Benedict XVI sends message to interreligious meeting in Japan
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a true believer in conciliarism's agenda of "religious freedom" and "separation of Church and state," is willing to stake his very life on convincing those he deems merchants of the "irrationality of violence," namely, Mohammedans who are unwilling to respect "religious freedom" and who do not want to enter into "inter-religious dialogue," that they must join with the other "religions of the world" to find ways of expressing "mutual respect" even in countries where one particular sect constitutes the predominant number of citizens. He wants each of the "world's religions" to show the sort of "respect" and "tolerance" that he has shown by entering the synagogue of Talmudic Judaism in Cologne, Germany, and by treating the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, as though it was a "holy" place by taking off his shoes and assuming a Mohammedan prayer position as he turned with his Mohammedan host in the direction of Mecca. This is his "faith." This is what he believes with all of his apostate, Modernist heart.
Never mind the fact that saints gave up their lives to avoid even the semblance of such sacrilegious displays that are offensive to the majesty of God. No, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is prepared to lay down his life in defense of the heresy of "religious freedom" so as to demonstrate that everyone, including Catholics, must show "respect" to symbols and beliefs of false religions, each of which comes from Hell and does the work of the devil. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a true conciliar revolutionary who is absolutely committed to the falsehoods of a false religion, demonstrate perverse apostolic, evangelical zeal in behalf of the "reform of the reform," the "Church as communion," false ecumenism, religious "freedom," "separation of Church and State," episcopal collegiality, inter-religious dialogue and the "spiritual ecumenism" of inter-religious prayer ceremonies.
As noted a few weeks ago, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is prepared to display just this kind of false "respect" to the "world's religions" during his upcoming pilgrimage to the United States of America:
WASHINGTON—Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jains and Hindu communities will meet with Pope Benedict XVI April 17, at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center during the April 15-20 papal visit to the United States.
The meeting will include a papal address, greetings from inter-faith leaders and the presentation of symbolic gifts by young members of each community.
Bishop Richard Sklba, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, noted that the theme Religions Working for Peace will run through the meeting, to which 200 leaders have been invited.
“The cry for peace in our world calls for religious bodies to come together,” Bishop Sklba said. “This meeting denotes the Holy Father’s belief in the need for religious bodies to stress the goal for peace which lies at the heart of all religions. It “exemplifies what must happen all over the world.”
The gifts symbolize the path to peace in the deepest teachings of each group. They include:
A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem.
A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color.
A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue.
The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers.
A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment.
Presenters of the gifts include:
David J. Michaels, director of Intercommunal Affairs at B'nai B'rith International, the oldest Jewish humanitarian, advocacy and social action organization. A graduate of Yeshiva University, he trained at the Foreign Ministry of Germany, the Embassy of Israel in Washington, Ha'aretz - International Herald Tribune, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, the United Nations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Saman Hussain, born in Pakistan and a graduate of the University of Virginia where she majored in religious studies and foreign affairs. Saman served as a leader of the Muslim Student Association and was a coordinator of the Unity Walk in memory of the victims of 9/11, organized by the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington.
Aditya Vora, a Jain young adult studying at Haverford College in Pennsylvania. He has been active since high school in the Long Island Multi-Faith Forum, dialogues with Holocaust survivors in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region, and anti-prejudice, multi-cultural training programs on Long Island, NY. He received the "Student Human Rights Award" from the Smithtown, NY, Anti-Bias Task Force.
Masako Fukata, born in Tokyo, Japan, is an active youth leader of Rissho Kosei-kai, a socially engaged Buddhist organization headquartered in Tokyo with six million members world-wide. Inspired by Pope John Paul II’s hosting of the global inter-religious assembly of the World Conference of Religions for Peace at the Vatican in 1994, Ms. Masako served an internship in the Religions for Peace International Secretariat in New York in 2003. She is a member of the newly developing North American Regional Multi-Religious Youth Network.
Ravi Gupta, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Religion at Centre College, Kentucky. With a doctorate in Religion from University of Oxford, he is the author of The Caitanya Vaisnava Vedanta of Jiva Gosvami: When Knowledge Meets Devotion. He participated in a recent USCCB-Hindu consultation and is committed to pursuing interreligious dialogue in both his professional and personal capacities. USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu Leaders To Meet With Pope Benedict XVI
Saints gave up their lives to eradicate these symbols of false religions. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is prepared to go to his grave by at least permitting the impression to be given that the man considered by most of the people in the world to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the Successor of Saint Peter considers such symbols worthy of all respect and honor! Does any rational, sane Catholic who has not lost his intellectual integrity want to contend that God in the very Flesh, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, would treat symbols of false religions with respect and honor, that He would "accept" them with equanimity and gratitude? Only someone who is very weak in--or entirely bereft of--his Catholic Faith, one who had no sense of the honor and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and wants to curry favor with men and with world "opinion," would commit such an apostate act that shows him to be, whether or not he admits it to himself, an open enemy of God Himself by daring to treat such diabolical objects and instruments with respect and honor. Then again, you see, one who denies the nature of truth really does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church. Such a man is not a Catholic, making it quite easy for him to give such offenses to God as represented by treating the symbols of false religions with respect and honor.
Indeed, no one possessed of the sensus Catholicus would sit and listen to the Good Friday sermon delivered on March 21, 2008, in the Basilica of Saint Peter by Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., part of which is excerpted here:
However, experience is convincing us that even this doctrinal ecumenism is not sufficient and does not advance matters if it is not also accompanied by a foundational spiritual ecumenism. This is repeated with ever greater insistence by the major promoters of institutional ecumenism. In this centenary of the institution of the week of prayer for Christian unity (1908 – 2008), at the foot of the cross we would like to meditate on this spiritual ecumenism, on what this spiritual ecumenism is and how we can make progress in it.
Spiritual ecumenism is born through repentance and forgiveness and is nourished by prayer. In 1977 I participated in a charismatic ecumenical congress in the U.S., in Kansas City, Missouri. There were 40.000 participants, half of them Catholic – Cardinal Suenens among them – and half from other Christian denominations. One evening, one of the leaders of the meeting began speaking at the microphone in way that, to me, at that time, was strange: “You priests and pastors, weep and mourn, because the body of my Son is broken... You lay people, men and women, weep and mourn, because the body of my Son is broken.”
I began to see people around me fall to their knees, one after another, and to weep with repentance for the divisions in the body of Christ. And all of this went on while a sign reading “Jesus is Lord” went up from one part of the stadium to the other. I was there as an observer who was still rather critical and detached, but I remember thinking to myself: If one day all believers shall be reunited in one single body, it will happen like this, when we all are on our knees with a contrite and humiliated heart, under the great lordship of Christ.
If the unity of the disciples must be a reflection of the unity between Father and Son, it must above all be a unity of love, because such is the unity that reigns in the Trinity. Scripture exhorts us to “do the truth in love” – “veritatem facientes in caritate” (Ephesians 4:15). And Augustine affirms that “one does not enter into the truth if not through charity” – “non intratur in veritatem nisi per caritatem.” 
The extraordinary thing about this way to unity based on love is that it is already now wide open before us. We cannot be hasty in regard to doctrine because differences exist and must be resolved with patience in the appropriate contexts. We can instead “be hasty” in charity and already be united in that sense now. The true, certain sign of the coming of the Spirit, Saint Augustine writes, is not speaking in tongues, but it is the love of unity: “Know that you have the Holy Spirit when you allow your heart to adhere to unity through sincere charity.”
Let us reflect on Saint Paul’s hymn to charity. Each verse acquires a contemporary and new meaning if it is applied to the love of members of different Christian denominations in ecumenical relations:
“Love is patient…
Love is not jealous…
It does not seek its own interests…
It does not brood over injury… (if necessary, of the injury done to others!)
It does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth (it doesn’t rejoice over the difficulties of other Churches, but delights in their successes)
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1Corinthians 13:4 ff.).
This week we have accompanied a woman to her eternal rest – Chiara Lubich, the founder of the Focolare Movement – who was a pioneer and model of the spiritual ecumenism of love. She showed that the pursuit of unity among Christians does not lead to a closing to the rest of the world; it is rather the first step and the condition for a broader dialogue with believers of other religions and with all men and women who are concerned about the fate of humanity and about peace.
* * *
“Loving,” it has been said, “does not mean looking at each other but looking together in the same direction.” Even among Christians loving means looking in the same direction, which is Christ. “He is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14). It is like the spokes of a wheel. Consider what happens to the spokes of a wheel when they move from the center outward: as they distance themselves from the center they also become more distant from each other. On the contrary when they move from the periphery toward the center, the closer they come to the center they also come nearer to each other, until they form a single point. To the extent that we move together toward Christ, we draw nearer to each other, until we are truly, as Jesus desired, “one with him and with the Father.”
That which will reunite divided Christianity will only be the a new wave of love for Christ that spreads among Christians. This is what is happening through the work of the Holy Spirit and it fills us with wonder and hope. “The love of Christ moves us, because we are convinced that one has died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:14). The brother who belongs to another Church – indeed every human being – is “a person for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:16), as he has died for me. 2008-03-21 - Good Friday Sermon
Father Raniero Cantalamessa does not believe that the Catholic Church has a mission to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to her maternal bosom. Neither does the man who listened so patiently to his apostate sermon, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI,
Cantalamessa's elegy of praise in behalf of "spiritual ecumenism," the very likes of which were condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, was the brainchild in large measure of a monk of the Order of Saint Irenaeus, the late Abbe Paul Courtuier, a disciple of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Courtuier's work was praised by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, which was a thorough repudiation of Mortalium Animos, and praised quite openly by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in the address he delivered to "ecumenical" leaders in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, August 19, 2005:
I see good reason for optimism in the fact that today a kind of “network” of spiritual links is developing between Catholics and Christians from the different Churches and ecclesial Communities: each individual commits himself to prayer, to the examination of his own life, to the purification of memory, to the openness of charity. The father of spiritual ecumenism, Paul Couturier, spoke in this regard of an “invisible cloister” which unites within its walls those souls inflamed with love for Christ and his Church. I am convinced that if more and more people unite themselves to the Lord’s prayer “that all may be one” (Jn 17:21), then this prayer, made in the name of Jesus, will not go unheard (cf. Jn 14:13; 15:7, 16, etc.). With the help that comes from on high, we will also find practical solutions to the different questions which remain open, and in the end our desire for unity will come to fulfilment, whenever and however the Lord wills. I invite all of you to join me in following this path.
Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English. (This is the same address during which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, consistent with the quotation from Theological Highlights of Vatican II included at the beginning of this article, rejected what he termed "the ecumenism of the return.")
Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, wrote the following about Father Raniero Cantalamessa's 2002 Good Friday sermon, delivered in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Friday, March 29, 2002:
The Council of Trent defined dogmatically that without the Catholic Faith, "it is impossible to please God." (1) The Catholic Church also defined ex cathedra that there is only one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. (2)
Pope Leo XIII, elaborating on this point, taught:
"Since no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God …. we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will …. It cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion if it only be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking …. From all these [proofs] it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and propagate." (3) 1) Session V on Original Sin. See Denzinger n. 787.
2) The Church has defined this three times. The most forceful and explicit definition comes from Pope Eugene IV when he defined ex cathedra at the Council of Florence on Feb. 4, 1442: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil and his angels," (Mt 25: 41) unless before death they are joined with her; …. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless he abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
3) Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, apud Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism (Dublin: Regina Publications, 1943), pp. 7-8. From these sources, and from countless other magisterial teachings, it is clear that the only religion positively willed by God is the religion established by Christ Himself, the Catholic Church.
Yet, at the Vatican's Good Friday Liturgy, 2002, the Preacher to the Papal Household, Capuchin Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, said the other religions "are not merely tolerated by God …. but positively willed by Him as an expression of the inexhaustible richness of His grace and His will for everyone to be saved." (4) 4. All quotes from Fr. Cantalamessa's sermon are from the April 2, 2002 Catholic News Service report.
This, in short, is apostasy.
St. John, the Apostle of Love, said: "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 1: 22). Thus, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, any religion that rejects Christ, according to Scripture, is an Antichrist religion.
Regarding heretical religions, for example, "Orthodoxy" and Protestantism, St. Paul tells us that false creeds are the "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4: 1).
How, then, can Antichrist religions, and false creeds of heretics, which are "doctrines of devils," be regarded as "not merely tolerated by God but positively willed by Him"? This would mean that God positively wills religions to exist that teach Jesus Christ is not God and the Savior of mankind (as do non-Christian religions). It means that God positively wills religions to exist, such as Protestantism, that teach Christ did not establish the Church, did not establish the Holy Eucharist, did not establish the Sacraments. It also means that those Protestant sects that hold devotion to Our Blessed Mother in abhorrence are positively willed by God. This, despite the fact that Our Lady of Fatima asked for the Five First Saturdays of reparation for the blasphemies against her Immaculate Heart that are the fruit of these false religions.
In short, Fr. Cantalamessa's sermon means that God positively wills error. God positively wills lies. God positively wills evil.
Our Lord certainly permits evil, for He does not interfere with the free will of man. But it is blasphemy to claim that God wills it, since God cannot will that which is not good.
Is Jesus Full of Pride?
Fr. Cantalamessa's blasphemy does not end here. He also claimed that God is "humble in saving," and the Church should follow suit. "Christ is more concerned that all people should be saved than that they should know who is their Savior," he told a large congregation at St. Peter's Basilica, which included Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials.
It might sound sweet, but Fr. Cantalamessa is indirectly accusing Jesus Christ of pride. When he says, "Christ is more concerned that all people should be saved than that they should know who is their Savior," this is a pious snub to the pre-Vatican II teaching of 2000 years that holds it necessary for the soul to know, love and serve Christ in this world if he wishes to be happy with Him forever in the next. Fr. Cantalamessa is thus advocating the heterodox teaching of Fr. Karl Rahner on the "anonymous Christian."
In fact, only 50 years ago, if a 7-year-old student in Catholic school mouthed Fr. Cantalamessa's novel doctrine, he would have been deemed unfit to receive First Holy Communion. Now, 40 years into Vatican II's "new Springtime," this apostasy is preached on Good Friday at the Vatican by the preacher to the Papal Household.
This episode also reveals one of the many disadvantages of the Internet. News of Fr. Cantalamessa's homily was broadcast around the world via the Internet to thousands of Catholics who would have never otherwise heard it. The result is that many Catholics assume the Capuchin's words delivered in St. Peter's somehow approach the level of magisterial teaching. This is not true. Fr. Cantalamessa's Good Friday address is simply another homily filled with errors delivered by a Charismatic. It is that and nothing more. From Pentecostalism to Apostasy by John Vennari
Begging to disagree with my former colleague, no, Father Cantalamessa's 2002 Good Friday sermon, delivered in the presence of John Paul II, and Father Cantalamessa's 2008 Good Friday sermon, delivered in the presence of Benedict XVI, represent quite accurately the official apostasies of the countefeit church of conciliarism. Individuals are free to seek conversion to the Catholic Church if they are "motivated" to do so. "Unity," however, does not depend upon their doing so en masse on an unconditional basis. There is the need for "spiritual ecumenism" to be practiced in order to let the "spirit" guide "Christians" into a "discovery" of how to "realize" a "true" "unity" that does not "destroy" one's own "traditions." This is of the essence of what Joseph Ratzinger himself wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology and what he has reiterated time and time again during his false "pontificate," including in that August 19, 2005, address to leaders from Protestantism and Orthodoxy.
The absolute commitment of the conciliar revolutionaries to their apostate agenda is manifesting itself, it appears, in the completely pointless exercise being undertaken by the leadership of the Society of Saint Pius X to come to an "understanding" of the "Second" Vatican Council with those revolutionaries"in light of tradition." Leaving aside the Society's corporate refusal to recognize that the conciliarists are not Catholics and that the points made by the "nine" twenty-five years ago, March 25, 1983, were valid then and remain valid now, the following Kyrie Eleison post by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson on his Dinoscopus website demonstrates that that the conciliarists are indeed absolutely committed to their revolution, all masquerades about traditional papal attire and liturgical vestments notwithstanding:
From France I received earlier this month what seems to me a well-measured assessment of who today's Roman churchmen are and what they are trying to achieve. Here are extracts:
"...The churchmen in Rome are battling with us (clergy and laity of the Society of St. Pius X) to bring us around to accepting their Conciliar religion. Cardinal Castrillon and even the Pope are convinced that we are mistaken, and that it is their duty by all means fair and borderline foul to get us to accept the essence of the Second Vatican Council, which has become their Credo. To this end they work on us with determination and patience, but also with authority, always "for our own good".
"On our side, because we insist on sane thinking as an essential precondition to staying faithful to the irreformable doctrine that has been handed down to us, we find ourselves obliged to resist their pressure and so to disobey today's Magisterium in order to obey the God who does not change. However... we must never forget that despite their courtesy and subjective kindness, these Romans are, objectively speaking, our enemies. Beneath the appearance of good they are motivated by a spirit that is not good. An old proverb says that if you sup with the Devil, you need a long spoon..."
The writer's conclusion is also wise: "... On our side we should be devoting all our energies and abilities to keeping our faithful informed, to strengthening them spiritually and to forming them doctrinally... by not doing this enough, we lose in men and resources every time Rome attacks. In the trials lying ahead of us, reinforcing the quality of our troops will have more effect than trying to amass large numbers of Catholics who do not understand the need to fight".
"As Archbishop Lefebvre said on September 4, 1987, in Econe, "We must hold on, absolutely, through thick and thin... Rome, I declare, has lost the Faith, Rome has apostatized." End of the writer's quote. Kyrie eleison.
The Catholic Church cannot apostatize. The leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have done so. Their false church is an apostate church. All "negotiations," no matter how useful to demonstrate the conciliarists' synthetic faith, with the conciliar revolutionaries are as relevant to "restoring" the Catholic Church as efforts made by "high church" Anglicans to maintain "tradition" with their "low church" brethern, most of whom reject articles contained in the Apostles' Creed. Much like "low church" (or "mainstream") Anglicans, the conciliarists are apostates who believe in things that have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church despite the occasional show of Catholicity and the occasional expression of Catholic beliefs now and again. Those who believe in the Catholic Faith and are yet attached, no matter how tenuously, to the conciliar officials, ought to come to realize that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is no more representative of the Catholic Church than only other schismatic sect, including the "worldwide Anglican communion." (It would be well for members of the Society of Saint Pius X who have an open mind about the matter to listen Father Anthony Cekada's July 9, 2006, sermon," 07-09-2006 The Errors of the Society of St Pius X.)
No one can believe in the Modernist notion about the evolutionary nature of dogmatic truth or the new ecclesiology or religious "freedom" or separation of Church and State or false ecumenism or inter-religious dialogue/prayer meetings and remain a member of the Catholic Church. To defect from the Faith in one thing is to defect from the Faith entirely by violating the precepts of the Divine Positive Law, something that Pope Leo XIII, quoting Saint Augustine himself, noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).
Father Frederick Faber, writing in The Precious Blood, put the matter this way in 1860:
God condescends to put himself before us effecting Creation by a word. He spoke, and it was done. Let light be, and light was. Thus Creation is effected by the most simple of all agencies, namely, by a single means, and that means, not a work, but a mere word. The Precious Blood, on the other hand, effects its creations in Conversion by a multiplicity of means, of means which are often repeated, often varied, often intensified, often newly invented for fresh cases, and often quite peculiar to the individual case. There is nothing in the world which the Precious Blood cannot make a means of grace. Even sin, though it cannot be a means of grace, can be constrained to the ministries of grace, just as Satan is made the reluctant bondsman of the elect, and is forced to jewel their crowns with the very temptations he had devised for their destruction. Nevertheless in this respect also Conversion is like Creation. It is like in its choice of means, although not like in its simplicity. For the Precious Blood also chooses words for its instruments, as if in honor of that Eternal Word whose human life it is. The Sacraments are its ordinary modes of action, as we shall see later on; and words are the forms of the Sacraments, without which their peculiar miracles of grace cannot be wrought. Divine words are the chosen instruments of production in the supernatural as well as in the natural world.
It is one of the glories of the act of Creation, that there is no semblance of effort about it. It is the free act of God, but it is hardly an act in the sense in which we commonly use the word. It is an act in a much higher sense, a simpler and yet a more efficacious sense. It is an act without effort, without succession, without processes. It is an act such as befits the perfections of the Most High. His power did not rise up, as it were, to do it, nor his wisdom deliberate about it, nor his love grow to it. Nothing went out of him to the act, nor was the tranquility of his life quickened by it. Conversion, on the contrary, has all the look of effort about it. Nay, effort is not the word: I should rather have said agony. The Precious Blood working its way out of our Blessed Lord's Body in the sweat of Gethsemane, the slow, painful oozings from the Crown of thorns, the rude violence of the sprinkling at the Scourging, the distillation of the Blood along the streets of Jerusalem and up the slop of Calvary, the soaking of his clinging raiment, the four wells dug by the cruel nails ebbing and flowing with the pulses of his feeble life, the violation of the silent sanctuary of his Dead Heart, to seek for the few drops of that precious treasure that might be left--all these are parts of our effort of Conversion. Neither is there less look of effort in the Conversion of each single soul; more with some, and less with others. In most instances the Precious Blood seems to return to the charge again and again. Here it fails, there it succeeds. Now its success is hardly perceptible, not it is manifest, striking and decisive. The Precious Blood tries to convert every one, just as it was shed for every one. Multitudes remain unconverted, and are never won back to the kingdom of God. With them the battle has gone against grace. Even in defeat the Precious Blood triumphs. It gains glory for God; bit it is in ways which in this life we cannot put ourselves into a position to understand. It can boast also of decisive victories, of great strokes of grace, of hearts carried by storm, of saints made at once out of one heroic deed. But these are not the common cases. With most hearts it strives, and pleads, and toils; then it seems to intermit its labors, as if it were fatigued; it retires from the heart as if in despair. Once more it returns to its task, and occupies itself with incredible patience in minutest details, often working under ground and in circuitous ways. Not seldom it retires again, as if now completely baffled; and finally, when least expected, it leaps upon its prey from afar, and triumphs as much by the suddenness, as by the impetuosity of the onslaught.
Look at that soul, almost the richest booty it ever won in war, the soul of St. Paul. What long years there were of religious antecedents, what a blind generosity of a misdirected zeal, what a fidelity to unhelpful ordinances, what a preparation for humility in the cruel persecution of the faithful, what a prelude to apostolic fervor in that furious partisanship of the conscientious pharisee, what an insensible drawing nigh to the Gospel through the very perfection of his Judaism! Then follow St. Stephen's prayers, and thins are coming to the best with Saul when they are at their very worst. Yet Stephen's prayers are not so much attacking him as circumventing him. Then the heavens open at noonday, and the glorified Redeemer overwhelms him with sudden light, and blinds him, and flings him to the ground; and the blood of Stephen, which had cried aloud to the Blood of Jesus, is sweetly avenged by the heart of Paul being cleansed by that atoning Blood, and sent out unto all nations to be the especial preacher of that Blood which had so glorified itself in his Conversion. Yet while there is such a seeming contrast between Creation and Conversion in this matter of effort, there is also a close comparison between them. There is in reality no effort in the operation of the Precious Blood. It only needed to let itself be shed. It only needs not to let itself be outpoured. Its touch is health, life, resurrection, immortality, and glory. Its sole touch is its sole work. It never touches but it changes. It needs but to touch once in order to make its spiritual change complete. If it seems to add, to repeat, to re-touch, to re-deepen, to broaden, to improve on itself, all that comes from another part of its character. It is no sign of want of power, no necessary expenditure of artistic labor, no demand of experience, no consequence of more mature reflection. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in England in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 96-98.)
Although I wrote the following two weeks ago now, it is still very relevant:
Have the conciliarists spoken thus to the adherents of any false religion, including Talmudic Judaism or Mohammedanism? Isn't the fact that they do not speak thus an important and quite public manifestation of the apostate nature of a false religion named conciliarism, which seeks to appease the ancient enemies of the Faith while at the same time reaffirming them in adherence to a false religion unto the point of their very deaths?
The Catholic Church cannot be responsible for the apostasies of the present moment. The Catholic Church cannot give us evil liturgies or a rite of exorcism that even the chief exorcist of the City of Rome, Father Gabriel Amorth, has said is "useless" against the devil. It took me long enough to realize this fact.
Having realized it does not make me one whit better than those who do not see it as of yet and who are trying mightily to resist the truth of our situation, going to great lengths to indemnify apostates such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI at almost every turn. As I noted on many other occasions recently, it is most regrettable to find oneself in opposition to former friends and colleagues. Once one is led to discover the truth, however, it must be embraced and penances must be accepted to make reparation for resisting it--and encouraging others to resist its acceptance--over the years, which is what I am trying to do at the present time (in addition to all of the other sins for which I hope to live long enough to make satisfaction for before I am called to the moment of my Particular Judgment). And the truth could not be more plain: those who seek to "apologize" to the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ prove themselves to be His mortal enemies, prove themselves to have defected from the Faith and lost any claim whatsoever of legitimately holding and exercising any ecclesiastical office within the Catholic Church.
We must take refuge in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions whatsoever are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, placing our trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, when announcing the news of Saint Elizabeth's expecting the Precursor of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Saint John the Baptist, told Our Lady the following:
Because no word shall be impossible with God. (Luke 1: 37.)
The restoration of the Church is in God's hands. We must have the total trust of Our Lady herself as she said to Saint Gabriel:
Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. (Luke 1: 38.)
We have been blessed to have true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the false shepherds of its counterfeit church. May we make many sacrifices each day for these bishops and priests, offering up our prayers and sufferings and penances and sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we permit these truly good shepherds to help us through the tricks of the masqueraders and to cleave to the Catholic Faith in the catacombs for as long as it is necessary for us to do so.
Each of our own sins is responsible for worsening the state of the Church Militant on earth. May our own voluntary acts of penance and reparation help us to play a small role in the restoration of the Church as the clients of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by means of our devotion to her Most Holy Rosary and our fulfilling the terms of having been enrolled in her Brown Scapular as we week to fulfill her Fatima Message in our daily lives without fail.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for its manifestation sooner rather than later!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey
Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Patrick, pray for us.
Saint Joseph of Arimathea, pray for us.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints