Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                  April 22, 2007

No Need to be in Limbo Any Longer

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Well, the "shoe" has finally dropped. Even though apologists for all things conciliar, desperate to avoid even any serious consideration of the canonical and doctrinal principles supporting the sedevacantist thesis, which go so far as to ignore entirely a late conciliarist's own public statement in 2005 that the See of Peter would be vacant in the case of heresy ("It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy," Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda, Zenit, February 8, 2005), stated in October of last year that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was not going to endorse the findings of the International Theological Commission concerning the belief that there is "good reason" to "hope" that all unbaptized infants go to Heaven, thereby doing away with the traditional Catholic teaching on the existence of Limbo, Joseph Ratzinger has indeed endorse the Commission's findings, which have been published in a forty-page report.

Ratzinger and the conciliarist whom he chose to succeed himself as the prefect of the conciliarist entity known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a faith, it must be added, that is a synthetic novelty that is a perversion of the Catholic Faith, William Levada, believe that dogmatic truth is subject to change and "reinterpretation," thus standing the authentic, defined teaching of the Catholic Church concerning dogma on its head. An article about Levada's specific views on the evolution of dogma, a specific heresy condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, were noted in an interview he gave to the Whispers in the Loggia website last month:

The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. "We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.

But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation". . . .


Joseph Ratzinger believes in this with all of his might, as he explained in L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990:

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)


An article dealing with he report of the International Theological Commission said quite openly that the traditional Catholic teaching on Limbo and the fate of unbaptized infants had to be "reinterpreted:"

That teaching [that baptism is necessary for salvation] needs interpretation, in view of the fact that 'infants ... do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace."


Well, the teaching of the Catholic Church on Baptism cannot be "reinterpreted." Bishop Donald Sanborn noted this fact in an article, Damning Limbo to Hell, published in 2005:


Pope Pius XII clearly stated this in his address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) : "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."

Saint Augustine said: "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." (III de Anima). He also said in a letter to St. Jerome (no. 27): "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament [Baptism], both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."

Heretics Denied the Necessity of Infant Baptism

The necessity of Baptism was denied by the fourteenth-century heretic Wycliff, as well as by the Protestant reformers Bucer and Zwingli. Calvin said that infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb, and are therefore released from original sin without baptism.

Some Catholic theologians in the past, notably Cajetan, said something similar, namely that the unbaptized infant in the womb can be saved by an act of desire by the parents. This theory, however, was ordered to be expunged from Cajetan's commentary on St. Thomas by none other than Saint Pius V. . . .

The Two Punishments of Hell

Hell consists of two things: the deprivation of the beatific vision, which is the punishment for original sin, and the pain of sense, the fire, which is the punishment for actual sin. If after death, therefore, one is deprived of the beatific vision, then he is in hell — in the broad sense. I say "broad sense," since the common understanding of hell is the hell of the damned, the hell of hellfire and agony. This is hell in the strict sense of the term.

Since unbaptized babies have only original sin, theologians commonly concluded that there was a place in hell — in the broad sense — where they would be deprived of the vision of God, but would not be subjected to the pain of sense, since they committed no actual sin. This conclusion or theory, which is taught by nearly every theologian in the past eight hundred years, is in accordance with a pronouncement of Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell."

"Limbo" is from a Latin word which means "edge," and so the theologians were calling the place of the unbaptized babies the edge or outer limits of hell. It is a very reasonable conclusion.

Ratzinger's Upcoming New Heresy

But Ratzinger knows better than St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and practically every other theologian ever since. He is smarter than they. He says that Limbo is something which is incompatible with modern man.

So then we come to the fork in the road. According to Catholic doctrine, if one eliminates Limbo, the little babies are condemned to the hell of the damned, together with murderers, thieves, adulterers, perverts, heretics, and so forth. Will Ratzinger go that route?

No, he will no doubt take the other fork, which is to say that the little babies go to heaven. How happy this will make the mothers. But to follow this fork implicitly involves heresy, which is that babies dying without baptism can attain eternal salvation. We have already pointed out how this is contrary to Faith.

So one more heresy is being prepared by the arch-Modernist Ratzinger. But he will promulgate this one through the back door, as they usually do. He will appear to the world to be the nice old man — like an ecclesiastical Santa Claus — who gives away heaven to little babies. But underneath lies a pernicious heresy.

The Vatican II apologists, therefore, will have some more holes to plug in the dike. The pressure mounts on the conservative Novus Ordites to call Catholic what is plainly non-Catholic. They will have to stretch and bend like they have never done before to stave off the accusations of heresy. It is getting harder and harder for the defenders of the naked emperor to convince everyone that Ratzinger is wearing the clothing of orthodoxy.


Prophetic words from Bishop Sanborn, are they not? He saw very clearly what the results of the International Theological Commission's work would be, predicting also how the apologists for conciliarism and the conciliarists would continue to "lower the bar" by which one can remain a Catholic in good standing while putting into question the Church's irreformable teaching on the necessity of infant Baptism.


Unbaptized infants cannot go to Heaven. No "theological commission" composed of Modernists can change this fact, which is irreformable. To assert otherwise is indeed to contend that the defined teaching of the Catholic Church on Baptism can be "reinterpreted" in a way that makes it compatible with the dictates of human sentimentality and the alleged "needs" of "modern" man, an effort that is of the essence of the Modernist mind. The [First] Vatican Council stated quite clearly that anyone who contends that the defined teaching of the Catholic Church is subject to change and reinterpretation has anathematized himself right out of the Church:

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.


Pope Saint Pius X dealt directly with the Modernist assertion of the "evolution of dogma" in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, putting the lie to the substance of the quotations above from William Levada, Joseph Ratzinger and the report of the International Theological Commission on Limbo:


Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."

This is a complete and unequivocal condemnation of William Levada of the man who appointed him, Joseph Ratzinger. This is a compete and unequivocal condemnation of the work of the International Theological Commission concerning Limbo, which is a certain teaching of the Catholic Church and has been defended by numerous popes, including Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, an encyclical letter that condemned the errors of Gallicanism, part of which deal with the ability of kings and bishops and others to "resist" papal decrees they do not like while "recognizing" the legitimacy of the holder of the Throne of Saint Peter (sound familiar?):

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Number 26, Auctorem Fidei)


Pope Sixtus V, dealing directly with the heinous nature of abortion, had written the following in Effrænatam, October 28, 1588:

"For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature." (translation by Father Brian Harrison, Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?)


Pope Saint Pius X noted the following about Limbo:

Children who die without being baptized go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either because whilst carrying the original sin...they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory.


As I explained in Exposing Souls to a Fate Far Worse than Limbo, October 8, 2006:


As we know, the teaching of Pope Saint Pius X, to say nothing of almost every other preconciliar pope or council, is not held in very high esteem by most conciliarists, who will probably fall over themselves next year, the one hundredth anniversary of the issuance of Pascendi Dominici Gregis, to explain that the canonized pontiff's encyclical letter on Modernism was rooted in a hasty and superficial analysis of ideas that the "church" has come to recognize were not entirely erroneous and with which "she" has had to made a reconciliation through the documents of the Second Vatican Council. It cannot possibly be that the son of the postman from Riese, Italy, had analyzed--both correctly and prophetically--the very errors of conciliarism that most ordinary Catholics believe, mistakenly, bind their consciences under pain of Mortal Sin. Many, although certainly not all, of the conciliarists hold, to the contrary of the the traditional teaching concerning the existence of Limbo on the edge of Hell, that the souls of unbaptized children go to Heaven because of some "mysterious plan" said to be at work in God's "universal salvific will."

The belief in the error of "universal salvation" is toxic, especially when coupled to the "new ecclesiology" proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council and championed for years by Joseph Ratzinger before his rise to become Benedict XVI. (See: Bishop Donald Sanborn's The New Ecclesiology: An Overview), and the conciliarist notion of ecumenism, in that many fallen away Catholics and non-Catholics alike have become convinced that there is no necessity for them to be reconciled or converted to the Catholic Church before they die. "A 'loving" God would never send anyone to Hell," "modern man" has convinced himself, in no small measure, it should be added, because of the words and actions of the conciliar popes and bishops. We will only know at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day how many souls were lost because of the indifference to their salvation exhibited by the words and actions of conciliar popes, bishops and priests.


The Council of Florence, February 8, 1442, issued the following decree under the pontificate of Pope Eugene IV:

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people


The dogmatic decrees of the past mean nothing to Modernists, steeped in their Hegelian dialectic of the clash of ideas, believers in the absurdity that truth, including dogmatic truth, contains within itself the seeds of its own internal contradiction and can result in the contention that mutually contradictory statements can be reconciled with each other. Much like Martin Luther, however, who could not see clearly where his heretical propositions would lead (to the belief, antinomianism, that there was no need for men to be virtuous in their individual or social lives as their salvation was assured once they had made their "profession of faith" in the Lord Jesus as their "personal saviour," which Luther fought against but did not realize was the natural, logical, inevitable, inexorable result of his own heresies!), Joseph Ratzinger and his band of conciliarist Modernists do not see--and in fact deny--that the assertion that we can have "good hope" that unbaptized infants go to Heaven directly undermines the dogma of Baptism, all of their absurd, positivist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

The notorious dissenter from the Catholic Faith, Father Richard McBrien, a priest (ordained well before the changes in the Rites of Episcopal Consecration and Priestly Ordination) in completely good standing in the Archdiocese of Hartford who has been teaching at the University of Notre Dame since 1979, saw quite clearly the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the International Theological Commission's report on Limbo:

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response


Even a broken clock is right twice a day. McBrien, who is an enemy of the Catholic Faith, giving aid and comfort to fully pro-abortion Catholics such as Mario Matthew Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro in public office, saw quite clearly that the belief that unbaptized infants go to Heaven means that Baptism does not "exist to wash way the 'stain' of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church." Does Ratzinger believe this? Well, as is usually the case with him, e says contradictory things about the subject. It is, though, very clear that he believes that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, making him a heretic of the first order. It does not matter that he has not "defined" this. No Catholic is free to hold anything contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church and remain a Catholic in good standing, no less hold ecclesiastical office.

Once again, Pope Leo XIII put the lie to the abject novelty advanced by some defenders of the legitimacy of the spiritual robber barons who has posed as "pontiffs" in the past forty year that there is some ill-defined" minimal number of articles of the Faith to which one must ascribe in order not to fall from the Faith. This is a total novelty  It has zero support from the Fathers of the Catholic Church, as Pope Leo XIII declared resoundingly 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."


Joseph Ratzinger believes that it is possible for the "Church of Christ" to consist of those who profess different things, thus making a mockery of the Catholic Church's mark of Unity. He has made this clear throughout his Modernist career, doing so last November when called the so-called "patriarch of Constantinople" of the schismatic and heretical Greek Orthodox Church a "pastor" in "the Church of Christ." This signifies that he, Ratzinger, does not believe that it is an obstacle to the salvation of another's soul if he does not believe that Original Sin is transmitted to each human being from Adam and that it must be washed away in the flood waters of Baptism. In referring to that "patriarch" as a "pastor" in the "Church of Christ," Ratzinger is saying also that the Church of Christ is not coextensive with the Catholic Church, that one can be a member of this mythical "church" while denying papal primary, papal infallibility and the Catholic Church doctrines on Original Sin, the Filioque, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the bodily Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven and the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. It is clear that Joseph Ratzinger puts a very low premium on the binding nature of Catholic truth, believing that everything is subject to "reinterpretation" in light of the needs of "modern" man, including the dogmatic decrees of popes and councils, thus doing away with the whole notion of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Joseph Ratzinger, as one of the progenitors and propagators of and apologists for conciliarism, believes that the Catholic Church does not have a mission to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all men to the Catholic Church, making a mockery of the missionary work begun by the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday and watered with the blood of millions upon millions of Catholic martyrs over the years.

Joseph Ratzinger believes that those who adhere to false religions have the civil right to propagate themselves in civil society and that their false ideas can "contribute" to the common temporal good of society.

Joseph Ratzinger believes that the civil state does not have an obligation to recognize the Catholic Church and to afford her the favor and protection of the laws, thus spitting in the face of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, summarized so succinctly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906 (yes, I am serving up this one once again as it shows how completely incompatible Ratzinger's mind is with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church):

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


Joseph Ratzinger is a theological modernist, believing in the "evolution of dogma." He is also, as evidenced above, a political and social modernist, whose views of Church-State relations, which mirror those of the Orthodox and of Martin Luther, have been condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

. There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism


Remember this and remember it well. Joseph Ratzinger has stated that the so-called "Second" Vatican Council represented the "Church's" official "reconciliation with the new era begun in 1789," meaning a reconciliation with the principles of the French Revolution:

Let us be content to say here that the text [of Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)


Pope Leo XIII warned solemnly in  Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, that there can be no "reconciliation" with the principles of the Revolution:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God


Conciliarism is a diabolical "reconciliation" with Belial. Pope Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors the very embrace of "religious liberty" that Ratzinger promotes with his own being, warning against those who would seek to reconcile the Church with the "Synagogue of Satan:"

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation.... The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God's (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar's, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights....

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging.... Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.


The very ethos of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, which are the foundations of the modern State, including the United States of America, is what motivates Modernism's rejection of the confessionally Catholic state and its full-throated embrace and advance of heresy of religious liberty. Such a world has no place, therefore, for the doctrine of the necessity of infant Baptism. A world steeped in irrationality and sentimentality and illogic and emotionalism, each of which is the rotten issue of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry and the antinomianism spawned by the Protestant Revolt, cannot believe that God the Holy Ghost spoke these words infallibly through the Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 5, March 3, 1457:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.


The members of the "international theological commission" do not believe this. According to the press report of the commission's "findings," which are not "binding" upon Catholics and do not represent an "official" declaration of the conciliar magisterium even though they have received the approval of Joseph Ratzinger himself, you understand, the members of the commission believe:

'The need for the sacrament of baptism is not absolute and is secondary to God's desire for the salvation of every person."


How many women will be encouraged by their so-called "Catholic" pastors and curates in the conciliar structures to kill their preborn children, assuaged by the "good hope" that they will be reunited in Heaven with the babies they murder? How many baby-killers will seek to assuage women that they will see their murdered babies in Heaven? How many babies will be killed and souls denied the Beatific Vision for all eternity because of the bogus report of bogus Catholic serving on a bogus "theological" commission?

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, it all comes down to souls. Joseph Ratzinger and William Levada are disciples of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar's heresy of Universal Salvation, which has been critiqued by a number of good scholars, including Mr. James Larson ( Mr Larson’s analysis of Hans Urs Von Balthasar) and Father Regis Scanlon The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar). Catholic dogma must be deconstructed and "reinterpreted" in order to convince Catholics that the insights of the "new theologians" (Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Maurice Blondel, Von Balthasar, Ratzinger himself) that were condemned so forcefully by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis have "replaced" outdated doctrines and decrees and papal encyclical letters.

Unfortunately for these Modernists, however, the very Oath Against Modernism they took when being ordained to the Subdiaconate condemns these efforts of theirs in no uncertain terms:

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .


The whole purpose of conciliarism in general and of the "report" of the "international theological commission" is precisely to tailor dogma "according to what seems better and more suited for the culture of each age." No one ought to be in limbo for an instant about the fact that the conciliar church is a counterfeit church that is not the Catholic Church, which can never give us error under any aegis whatsoever. It is without any precedent in the history of the Catholic Church that a legitimate Roman Pontiff has endorsed documents defying defined articles of the Catholic Faith. (Those who would raise the examples of Popes Honorius and Liberius and John XXIII are advised to read Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki's Tumultuous Times.) Those who seek to lower the bar of the standard of what is authentically Catholic are engaging in Gallicanism and doing the same thing ecclesiastically as sappy-headed Republicans do each time a "conservative" president sells out preborn babies in order to advance himself with the general electorate. How sad it is those men who are enemies of Faith and thus of the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood will be heralded for the "liberation" of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as their revolution against the Faith and the eternal welfare of souls accelerates with lightning speed.

"Priests" in the indult world of conciliarism will be unable to denounce the "theological commission's report." They are muzzled, leaving their sheep to accept the "findings" without complaint in most instances, admitting that one or two such "priests" may speak out in guarded tones. Others, however, will remain silent, having convinced themselves that it is not necessary for them to oppose error, making a liar of Pope Pius VI's injunction in Inscrutabile, December 25, 1775:

Who would not be fearful at the present condition of the Christian people? The divine love by which we abide in God and God in us grows very cold as sins and wickedness increase every day. Who would not be shocked when considering that We have undertaken the task of guarding and protecting the Church at a time when many plots are laid against orthodox religion, when the safe guidance of the sacred canons is rashly despised, and when confusion is spread wide by men maddened by a monstrous desire of innovation, who attack the very bases of rational nature and attempt to overthrow them? Assuredly "with such reason for fear, we would have no hope of escaping slavery except that the Guardian of Israel, who does not sleep, says to His disciples: 'Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.' He deigned to be not merely the guardian of the sheep, but the shepherd of the shepherds as well". . . .

You yourselves, established as scouts in the house of Israel, see clearly the many victories claimed by a philosophy full of deceit. You see the ease with which it attracts to itself a great host of peoples, concealing its impiety with the honorable name of philosophy. Who could express in words or call to mind the wickedness of the tenets and evil madness which it imparts? While such men apparently intend to search out wisdom, "they fail because they do not search in the proper way. . . and they fall into errors which lead them astray from ordinary wisdom."[9] They have come to such a height of impiety that they make out that God does not exist, or if He does that He is idle and uncaring, making no revelation to men. Consequently it is not surprising that they assert that everything holy and divine is the product of the minds of inexperienced men smitten with empty fear of the future and seduced by a vain hope of immortality. But those deceitful sages soften and conceal the wickedness of their doctrine with seductive words and statements; in this way, they attract and wretchedly ensnare many of the weak into rejecting their faith or allowing it to be greatly shaken. While they pursue a remarkable knowledge, they open their eyes to behold a false light which is worse than the very darkness. Naturally our enemy, desirous of harming us and skilled in doing so, just as he made use of the serpent to deceive the first human beings, has armed the tongues of those men with the poison of his deceitfulness in order to lead astray the minds of the faithful. The prophet prays that his soul may be delivered from such deceitful tongues. In this way these men by their speech "enter in lowliness, capture mildly, softly bind and kill in secret." This results in great moral corruption, in license of thought and speech, in arrogance and rashness in every enterprise.

When they have spread this darkness abroad and torn religion out of men's hearts, these accursed philosophers proceed to destroy the bonds of union among men, both those which unite them to their rulers, and those which urge them to their duty. They keep proclaiming that man is born free and subject to no one, that society accordingly is a crowd of foolish men who stupidly yield to priests who deceive them and to kings who oppress them, so that the harmony of priest and ruler is only a monstrous conspiracy against the innate liberty of man.

Everyone must understand that such ravings and others like them, concealed in many deceitful guises, cause greater ruin to public calm the longer their impious originators are unrestrained. They cause a serious loss of souls redeemed by Christ's blood wherever their teaching spreads, like a cancer; it forces its way into public academies, into the houses of the great, into the palaces of kings, and even enters the sanctuary, shocking as it is to say so.

Consequently, you who are the salt of the earth, guardians and shepherds of the Lord's flock, whose business it is to fight the battles of the Lord, arise and gird on your sword, which is the word of God, and expel this foul contagion from your lands. How long are we to ignore the common insult to faith and Church? Let the words of Bernard arouse us like a lament of the spouse of Christ: "Of old was it foretold and the time of fulfillment is now at hand: Behold, in peace is my sorrow most sorrowful. It was sorrowful first when the martyrs died; afterwards it was more sorrowful in the fight with the heretics and now it is most sorrowful in the conduct of the members of the household.... The Church is struck within and so in peace is my sorrow most sorrowful. But what peace? There is peace and there is no peace. There is peace from the pagans and peace from the heretics, but no peace from the children. At that time the voice will lament: Sons did I rear and exalt, but they despised me. They despised me and defiled me by a bad life, base gain, evil traffic, and business conducted in the dark." Who can hear these tearful complaints of our most holy mother without feeling a strong urge to devote all his energy and effort to the Church, as he has promised? Therefore cast out the old leaven, remove the evil from your midst. Forcefully and carefully banish poisonous books from the eyes of your flock, and at once courageously set apart those who have been infected, to prevent them harming the rest. The holy Pope Leo used to say, "We can rule those entrusted to us only by pursuing with zeal for the Lord's faith those who destroy and those who are destroyed and by cutting them off from sound minds with the utmost severity to prevent the plague spreading." In doing this We exhort and advise you to be all of one mind and in harmony as you strive for the same object, just as the Church has one faith, one baptism, and one spirit. As you are joined together in the hierarchy, so you should unite equally with virtue and desire.

The affair is of the greatest importance since it concerns the Catholic faith, the purity of the Church, the teaching of the saints, the peace of the empire, and the safety of nations. Since it concerns the entire body of the Church, it is a special concern of yours because you are called to share in Our pastoral concern, and the purity of the faith is particularly entrusted to your watchfulness. "Now therefore, Brothers, since you are overseers among God's people and their soul depends on you, raise their hearts to your utterance," that they may stand fast in faith and achieve the rest which is prepared for believers only. Beseech, accuse, correct, rebuke and fear not: for ill-judged silence leaves in their error those who could be taught, and this is most harmful both to them and to you who should have dispelled the error. The holy Church is powerfully refreshed in the truth as it struggles zealously for the truth. In this divine work you should not fear either the force or favor of your enemies. The bishop should not fear since the anointing of the Holy Spirit has strengthened him: the shepherd should not be afraid since the prince of pastors has taught him by his own example to despise life itself for the safety of his flock: the cowardice and depression of the hireling should not dwell in a bishop's heart. Our great predecessor Gregory, in instructing the heads of the churches, said with his usual excellence: "Often imprudent guides in their fear of losing human favor are afraid to speak the right freely. As the word of truth has it, they guard their flock not with a shepherd's zeal but as hirelings do, since they flee when the wolf approaches by hiding themselves in silence.... A shepherd fearing to speak the right is simply a man retreating by keeping silent." But if the wicked enemy of the human race, the better to frustrate your efforts, ever brings it about that a plague of epidemic proportions is hidden from the religious powers of the world, please do not be terrified but walk in God's house in harmony, with prayer, and in truth, the three arms of our service. Remember that when the people of Juda were defiled, the best means of purification was the public reading to all, from the least to the greatest, of the book of the law lately found by the priest Helcias in the Lord's temple; at once the whole people agreed to destroy the abominations and seal a covenant in the Lord's presence to follow after the Lord and observe His precepts, testimonies and ceremonies with their whole heart and soul." For the same reason Josaphat sent priests and Levites to bring the book of the law throughout the cities of Juda and to teach the people. The proclamation of the divine word has been entrusted to your faith by divine, not human, authority. So assemble your people and preach to them the gospel of Jesus Christ. From that divine source and heavenly teaching draw draughts of true philosophy for your flock. Persuade them that subjects ought to keep faith and show obedience to those who by God's ordering lead and rule them. To those who are devoted to the ministry of the Church, give proofs of faith, continence, sobriety, knowledge, and liberality, that they may please Him to whom they have proved themselves and boast only of what is serious, moderate, and religious. But above all kindle in the minds of everyone that love for one another which Christ the Lord so often and so specifically praised. For this is the one sign of Christians and the bond of perfection.


Enough. We must make acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in these times of apostasy and betrayal. The conciliarists will lose. Their apologists will be forced sooner or later to admit that the conciliarists had fallen from the Faith and had thus lost any claim to ecclesiastical office. In the meantime, however, we need to make reparation for our own many sins, which have worsened the state of the Church and the world, and to beseech Our Lady to console her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart for the betrayals and blasphemies and sacrileges by which He and His immutable Truths has been subjected by the false shepherds in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We should also give thanks for being given true bishops and priests in the Catholic catacombs, men who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the legitimacy of the conciliar shepherds, men who seek to defend the Faith against the naturalists from without and the conciliar apostates who have insinuated themselves so diabolically into the lives of most Catholics.

As Catholics, of course, we are never pessimists (sad idiots) or optimists (happy idiots). We are simply servants who seek to do our duty each day, spending time before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer and praying as many Rosaries as our states-in-life permit. God has known from all eternity that the things we are experiencing at present would occur. The graces He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that are made present in the Church by the working of the Holy Ghost by means of Sanctifying and Actual Grace and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to deal with and to prosper under the crosses of the present moment. We should consider it our singular privilege to be able to make reparation for our own many sins and betrayals by defending the Catholic Faith as best we can as the consecrated slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus during this time of apostasy and betrayal. We know the "end of the story." We simply need to be humble, docile instruments in helping to plant the seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and thus the restoration of the Church in all her glory, including the Social Reign of Christ the King.

We continue to celebrate during this Easter season of glory. May we ask Our Lady to send us all of the graces that we need to reject human respect and the desire for "approval" from heretics and their enables in the conciliar structures so that we can hold fast to the line of the true Faith and support true bishops and true bishops with our prayers and sacrifices for the greater honor and glory of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and thus the vanquishing of the blight of error and heresy and novelty from the prideful deceiver known as the "Modernist" Catholic.


Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Anselm, pray for us.

Saints Souter and Caius, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Pope Saint Anicetus, pray for us.

Saint Benedict Joseph Labre, pray for us.

Saint Justin the Martyr, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.


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

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

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

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

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

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

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

Response:  Amen.  


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