Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                             September 21, 2011

No Christianity Without The Holy Cross

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Pain and suffering are two of the many consequences of Original Sin and of our own Actual Sins. It is only the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, that teaches men the truth about pain and suffering, exhorting them to recognize that each of must suffer on account of the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin in the world and on account of our own personal sins.

The true Faith, the Catholic Faith. alone teaches men that they must see in suffering and pain and humiliation and rejection and calumny and ridicule and ostracism and poverty and ill-health the path of our sanctification and salvation.

The Catholic Faith alone provides men with the means to accept with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings that come our way. She alone has the graces, won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, to equip men to carry their crosses with equanimity as they seek to make reparation for their sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of the Divine Redeemer through His Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Catholics understand that nothing we suffer in this mortal, passing vale of tears that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused His Most Blessed Mother to suffer as those Seven Swords of Sorrow were pierced through and through her Immaculate Heart. Catholics know that they have no reason to complain or grumble about anything that happens to them in this life. They have only to accept the adorable will of God as He manifests it for them in their lives, accepting suffering and pain and rejection as the means by which they can save their souls and give honor and glory to Him as they are conformed more perfectly with the patience and obedience exhibited by His only begotten Son on the wood of the Holy Cross.

While there are times when intense, debilitating and/or physically incapacitating pain can be relieved by various types of over-the-counter analgesics or prescription medications, we are not to expect that we can live our lives without enduring our share of pain. We are also to understand and to accept the fact that the we will suffer more and more pain, both emotional and physical, as we grow closer and closer to God through Mary Immaculate as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church.

Many saints prayed to suffer for love of Our Lord and the souls for whom He shed His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, being willing to take up themselves various penances to make reparation for the sins of others just as Our Lord took our own sins upon Himself as He suffered and died for us to make atonement for those sins. Other saints prayed specifically for the gift of martyrdom so that they could make expiation for their own sins by a perfect act of self-immolating love for the Most Blessed Trinity and thus go straight to Heaven after their deaths. Catholics embrace suffering as the path of their salvation.

Protestants understand none of this, steeped in a world of irrational rationalism, something that afflicts their close friend, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is about to embark upon another exercise in ecumania (see Rationalists Are Irrational) while visiting his homeland of the Federal Republic of Germany starting tomorrow, Thursday, September 22, 2011, the Feast of Saint Thomas of Villanova and the Commemoration of Saint Maurice and his Companions, and emotionalism and sentimentality. Lacking the very principle of unity that Our Lord Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church, that is, the Chair of Peter, Protestantism has devolved into a welter of thousands upon thousands of competing sects, each contending with each other as to the "meaning" of various passages in Sacred Scripture, which they believe is the sole source of Divine Revelation.

Something similar has, of course, occurred in the counterfeit church of conciliarism which has been led by false shepherds for over five decades now, men who are at war with the patrimony of the Catholic Church and whom have resorted to all manner of rationalistic games to rationalize contradictions of Sacred Dogma as being perfectly consonant with the Holy Faith, which is why it is always ironic when some of those who reject the legitimacy of the conciliar "pontiffs"do and say things that demonstrate a perfect agreement of mind and will with them on some matters of Faith and Morals. More to the point, however, is that there is no real unity within the conciliar structures as the various warring camps ("conservative," "traditional," "progressive," "ultra-progressive") can be found lumped together into the same parishes, producing the combustible mixture for all kinds of fireworks now and again. Believe me, I know. Been there, done that. A lot. The counterfeit church of conciliarism will always be consigned to the same kind of divisions as found within what the false "pontiff" calls "ecclesial communities," namely, Protestants sects.

Lacking a love of the Holy Cross and rejecting all notion of the necessity of redemptive suffering, Protestants must live in their world of emotionalism and sentimentality by seeking all manner of naturalistic explanations and "cures" to deal with the problems of daily living. Catholics in the Middle Ages did not need, for example, Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program or newsletters to know how to live a true Christian family life as they had their focus was on the domestic life and practice of the Holy Family at all times. What does James Dobson care about Saint Joseph or the very Mother of God? Why listen to him? Why pay any attention to him at all? He has nothing to teach you but naturalism, which is of the devil. No naturalist "talking head" has anything to offer us. None of this blabbering, blithering idiots is worth a moment of our precious Catholic time. None of them. No, not one of them.


Let me remind the small readership of this site of the following truth stated by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Simple enough. Why do so many people persist in refusing to accept this?

There can be no love of the Holy Cross without the true Faith, which alone provides us with the supernatural helps necessary to bear our crosses as a just punishment for our sins and as we seek to make reparation for those sins of our and for those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is why the dunderhead known as Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson is prone to make so many stupid, ignorant remarks that make some of his Protestant confreres wince in horror. 

Robertson, who said in 1997 that he did not oppose Red China's "one child per family" policy because "they've got  a billion people over there they've got to feed" and has also made bold predictions about the end of the world (it was supposed to have occurred in 1982) and other things, has said that a husband would be within his "rights" to divorce a wife suffering from Alzheimer's Disease in order to have "companionship" with a new wife:

With his suggestion this week that a man whose wife was far "gone" with Alzheimer's should divorce her if he wanted a new companion, television evangelist Pat Robertson stumbled into treacherous moral terrain, setting off storms of criticism and questions about a disease that shatters lives and families.

Other conservative Christian leaders were swift to condemn his remarks as a call to violate the biblical sacrament of marriage. Many doctors and patient advocates had a more complex response, with many suggesting that Robertson had repeated misleading stereotypes about Alzheimer's but had also broached an important subject, how spouses and other family members of dying patients can prevent their lives from being engulfed and start to move on.

On his television program, "The 700 Club," on Tuesday, Robertson took a call from a man who asking how he should advise a friend whose wife was deep into dementia and no longer recognized him.

"His wife as he knows her is gone," the caller said, and the friend is "bitter at God for allowing his wife to be in that condition, and now he's started seeing another woman."

"This is a terribly hard thing," Robertson said, clearly struggling to think his way through a wrenching situation. "I hate Alzheimer's. It is one of the most awful things, because here's the loved one — this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly that person is gone.

"I know it sounds cruel," he continued, "but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but to make sure she has custodial care, somebody looking after her."

When Robertson's co-anchor on the program wondered if that was consistent with marriage vows, Robertson noted the pledge of "'til death do us part," but added, "This is a kind of death."

He said the question presented an ethical dilemma beyond his ability to answer.

"I certainly wouldn't put a guilt trip on you if you decided that you had to have companionship," Robertson said, apparently suggesting divorce as a way to avoid the sin of adultery.

The reaction from many evangelical leaders, who see lifelong, traditional marriage as the cornerstone of morality and society, was harsh and disbelieving.

"This is more than an embarrassment," Russell D. Moore, dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., wrote in a blog post Thursday. "This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

But Beth Kallmyer, senior director of constituent services at the Alzheimer's Association in Chicago, declined to question Robertson's remarks. (see Pat Robertson's remarks on Alzheimer's stir passion)


"This is a kind of death"? What an utter naturalist. A kind of death. What idiocy.

 The ethos of divorce wrought by the Protestant Revolution has made short work of these plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[31] And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. [32] But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [33] Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself: but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. [34] But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [35] Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king:  (Matthew 5: 31-15.)


As the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., noted in 1987, "The Protestant Revolt was about two things: lust and divorce." As Father John Joseph Sullivan (Jackie Boy Remembered Yet Again) said in class at Holy Apostles Seminary, "Protestants can get as many dollies as they like. It's simple. Get a new dolly, get a divorce, get rid of the old dolly. And this is what we're doing today with those annulments."

A man and a woman join together in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony to propagate and educate children and to serve as mutual supports to each other unto their eternal and temporal well-being. The two become one flesh upon entering into the married state, meaning that they are to find their joy and fulfillment in serving the other as they would serve Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the very Flesh. The husband is to see in his wife the image of the Most Blessed Mother, surrounding her with care and affection no matter the difficulties that might arise in the number of years that God gives them until one of them dies. The wife is to see in her husband the image of Saint Joseph, the just and silent man of the House of David, treating him with loving respect as the head of the household and tending to her domestic duties as did Our Lady herself in the Holy Family.

Children are to be welcomed generously as they are taught in the sanctuary of the home, coming to understand that they are to return to their parents the care and support that their parents had given to them when they, the parents, become incapable of supporting or caring for themselves. This is indeed a fundamental precept of the Fourth Commandment as grown children are called upon by God to provide such support for their elderly and disabled parents while at the same time fulfilling their own duties as husbands and wives if they are in the married state (the obligations would be different, of course, for children who have become priests or consecrated religious.)

Mutual self-giving is the hallmark of married life no matter the clash of personalities that might occur from time to time and the ordinary trials of daily existence that caused Saint Paul the Apostle, writing under the inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, to offer his judgment that virginity is the higher calling so as to avoid tribulations (cf. 1 Cor. 7: 28) without of course, in the least condemning holy matrimony.  No sacrifice must be considered too great to make for a husband to care for his wife or for a wife to care for her husband when the other becomes sick or disabled or even loses his mind. Human beings marry other human beings, composed of a body and a soul that is the made in the very image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity and that has been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. The integrity of the person remains until the moment of bodily death, which is not, of course, that of the medical-industry's manufactured-for-profit myth of "brain death" (see Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation).

None of us is to think naturalistically at any time. We are think supernaturally at all times. The graces won for us by Our Lord on Calvary that He sends to us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother are sufficient for every moment of our lives. There is nothing that we are asked to bear that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart to pierced through and through with those Seven Swords of Sorrow. Protestants reject this truth, which is why a man such as Pat Robertson, who resigned his "ministry" as a Baptist "minister" to run for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1987 and 1988,

A husband has a just reason to divorce his wife because the woman he married no longer recognizes or knows him? A husband can divorce his wife because he is need of "companionship"? Such are the questions posed by Protestants and naturalists who refuse to accept the will of God in their lives, which refusal is itself the result of their rejection of the teaching authority of His true Church on earth.

Lest anyone think that this kind of thinking is confined to Protestant and naturalist circles, just consider the fact that the questions posed by the former Baptist "minister," based as they are in the emotionally-laden, self-centered view that it is "impossible" for a man to live without female "companionship," are not far removed from those posed by Catholics who think as "naturalists." As one person described recently, a supposedly traditional priest justified what he called "nfp" as the "Catholic alternative to contraception" even though Pope Pius XII specifically rejected the view that the gift of the married state could be restricted to a woman's monthly period of infertility for any reason at all to avoid using contraception:



The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Pope Pius XII's allocution of nearly sixty years ago now was not an invitation extended to married couples to practice rhythm (remember, the phrase "natural family planning" was invented by a "population control" advocate in 1971 and refers to the personalist, self-centered view of marriage condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944 that ultimately became the basis of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's "liberalization" of the conditions outlined by Pope Pius XII; see Always Trying To Find A Way). It is to think as a naturalist to contend that it is "better" for a couple to practice "nfp" than contraception.

It is thus pertinent to remind the few remaining readers of this site that the "better 'nfp' than contraception" rationale is at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church, something that Father Goodwine of the American Ecclesiastical Review (as cited in Monsignor George A. Kelley's The Catholic Marriage Manual):

"There is a tendency to limit the discussion of periodic continence to questions of strict morality, to concentrate almost exclusively on right and wrong, to attempt to draw the line between what may and what may not be done without committing sin," Father Goodwine states. "All too often such discussions lose sight of the Christian ideal of family life. Hardly ever do we hear any mention of the ideal of parenthood or of family life as the ideal type of married life.

"God instituted marriage as the means for the propagation of the race. The fruitful marriage, therefore, and not the sterile marriage, is the marriage that falls in best with God's plan. Having children is the primary goal of marriage. The family, therefore, consisting of father, mother and children is the ideal for the Christian.

"There is something amiss when a couple wishes to marry, yet does not want to have any children; or determines to postpone having children for one, two or more years; or intends to have only three or four or six children but no more. A priest friend of mine likens such people to a young man seeking ordination to the priesthood who makes the stipulation that he will never have to say Mass, administer the sacraments, preach, or take duty. Such a young man would be seeking to avoid the very purposes for which men are ordained to the priesthood. So, too, the married couple who, without sufficient reason, seek to avoid children, fail to fulfill their purpose in life. Even the couple who has a sufficient reason for practicing rhythm can be counseled to do more than is required by duty; to strive deliberately and consciously after the ideal.

"The present Holy Father has said: It is one of the fundamental demands of right moral order that a sincere inner acceptance of the office and duties (of parenthood) correspond to the use of conjugal rights.' There must then be a willingness on the part of married persons and on the part of couples entering marriage to 'serve' motherhood and fatherhood a willingness to become parents. Perhaps more attention should be paid to what Dr. John Kane, of Notre Dame, calls the 'almost unanimous conclusion' of sociological studies on marital happiness: 'Happiness in marriage is not associated with the presence or absence of children in the family, but with a strong desire to have children. (Text as found in Monsignor George Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, Random House, 1958, pp.58- 60.)


Monsignor Kelly put it very concisely in this short paragraph:

Holy Father's statement on rhythm: Who may practice the rhythm method? A clear answer was given by Pope Pius XII in 1951 in an address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives. His Holiness pointed out that married couples are obliged to procreate and to help conserve the human race. In the Pontiffs words: "Matrimony obliges to a state of life which, while carrying with it certain rights, also imposes a fulfillment of positive work connected with that state of life." This means that rhythm is not to be used indiscriminately. The small-family or no-family state of mind is not necessarily good simply because contraceptives are not used. (Monsignor George A. Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, published by Random House in 1958, pp. 55-56.)


So much for any "traditional" priest who asserts that the contrary is true.

Robertson represents but a caricature of the attitude that has given rise even in some traditional Catholic circles to the naturalistic, utilitarian view that it's just not "possible" for married couples to control their carnal desires and/or that it is not "possible" for a married man or a married woman to remain without "companionship" for long periods of time. Robertson believes that this is so for a man whose wife no longer "recognizes" him. Even some Catholics in traditional circles believe that it is better to "leave a couple alone" rather than to tell them that their conciliar decree of marital nullity is worthless and that they must live in a Josephite marriage as to do so is said to be "impossible." Not according to Pope Pius XII, however, and thus not according to God:

Perhaps you will now press the point, however, observing that in the exercise of your profession you find yourselves sometimes faced with delicate cases, in which, that is, there cannot be a demand that the risk of maternity be run, a risk which in certain cases must be absolutely avoided, and in which as well the observance of the agenesic periods either does not give sufficient security, or must be rejected for other reasons. Now, you ask, how can one still speak of an apostolate in the service of maternity?

If, in your sure and experienced judgment, the circumstances require an absolute "no," that is to say, the exclusion of motherhood, it would be a mistake and a wrong to impose or advise a "yes." Here it is a question of basic facts and therefore not a theological but a medical question; and thus it is in your competence. However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a "technique" of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty. Your apostolate in this matter requires that you have a clear and certain judgment and a calm firmness.

It will be objected that such an abstention is impossible, that such a heroism is asking too much. You will hear this objection raised; you will read it everywhere. Even those who should be in a position to judge very differently, either by reason of their duties or qualifications, are ever ready to bring forward the following argument: "No one is obliged to do what is impossible, and it may be presumed that no reasonable legislator can will his law to oblige to the point of impossibility. But for husbands and wives long periods of abstention are impossible. Therefore they are not obliged to abstain; divine law cannot have this meaning."

In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: "God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able".

Do not be disturbed, therefore, in the practice of your profession and apostolate, by this great talk of impossibility. Do not be disturbed in your internal judgment nor in your external conduct. Never lend yourselves to anything which is contrary to the law of God and to your Christian conscience! It would be a wrong towards men and women of our age to judge them incapable of continuous heroism. Nowadays, for many a reason,—perhaps constrained by dire necessity or even at times oppressed by injustice—heroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent that in the past would have been thought impossible. Why, then, if circumstances truly demand it, should this heroism stop at the limits prescribed by the passions and the inclinations of nature? It is clear: he who does not want to master himself is not able to do so, and he who wishes to master himself relying only upon his own powers, without sincerely and perseveringly seeking divine help, will be miserably deceived.

Here is what concerns your apostolate for winning married people over to a service of motherhood, not in the sense of an utter servitude under the promptings of nature, but to the exercise of the rights and duties of married life, governed by the principles of reason and faith. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)


Just as "nfp" is the "alternative to contraception" in the mind of a traditional priest, so is divorce the "alternative" to adultery in the mind of Pat Robertson. The common denominator is the specious belief that it is "too tough" for a man or a woman to be without "companionship" provided by the gift of the married state. Pure naturalism. Pure and utter naturalism.

Moreover, it is possible for a husband or for a wife to live with a spouse who can no longer communicate or who no longer recognizes them in order to hold a conversation with them. Each of us has a Guardian Angel who beholds the very Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. We are close to a spouse who is in a coma or brain damaged or suffering from some form of dementia by asking his own Guardian Angel to keep greet and the spouse's Angel. We are ever close to Our Lord in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and to His Most Blessed Mother and our Patron Saints. We are close to the entire Communion of Saints. No human being is ever "alone" in the supernatural sense. And while it is true, as Saint Thomas Aquinas notes, we are social beings who desire to interact with others, it is also true that great growth in the supernatural life can occur when we have time for prayer and spiritual reading by keeping a spouse company whose very presence is a reminder that the marital bond lasts until death and that there is no lessening an obligation on our parts to give unto our spouses what they can no longer give to us.

There is no turning around the madness that envelops us, a madness that manifests itself in any manner of ways, especially in the Protestant-Judeo-Masonic ethos that has resulted in the universal triumph of the Americanist spirit of religious indifferentism and naturalism. One sin leads to another. Marital divorce and remarriage was one of the linchpins of Martin Luther's Protestant Revolution that Ratzinger/Benedict will be heralding, at least in part, over the course of the next few days as he visits the Eastern parts of the Federal Republic of Germany. And from this has flowed all other evils that the naturalists of Judeo-Masonry who followed in Luther's wake have promoted to undermine the stability of the family in order to augment the power of the monster civil state of Modernity.

When you think about it, though, Martin Luther's promotion of marital divorce was the logical consequence of the worst kind of divorce imaginable: that of redeemed creatures from the true Church that their Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, had founded upon the rock of Peter, the Pope, for their sanctification, instruction and salvation. It is from this diabolically inspired divorce that marital divorce and all other social evils have flowed for six years shy of half of a millennium. Protestantism is an escape from the true Church, which means that it is an escape from the Cross, our only glorious and precious hope.

September is the month of the Holy Cross and the Dolors of Our Lady. We can never escape the Cross in our own lives as to do so is to add more sorrows to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. May we always trust in the tender mercies of the Sacred Heart of Jesus as we fly unto It through the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that we can embrace suffering with love, knowing that a safe and sure shelter awaits us in the love of these two Hearts if only we persevere until the end in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church, rejecting even the slightest trace of compromise with error, being always open to recognizing and abjuring any errors of ours for love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.

There is no Christianity without the Cross, Pat Robertson. There can only be confusion wrought by sentimentality and illogic. Such is the path to Hell, not to Heaven, which is reserved for those who have embraced the Cross and offered up their sufferings to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, a Heart that  will indeed triumph in the end once Our Lady's Fatima Message is fulfilled.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Matthew the Apostle, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.