Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 August 31, 2007

Not Important At All?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Many people in the indult world were positively livid with me three years ago when a piece I wrote for Catholic Family News, "The Price of Recognition," examined Bishop Fernando Rifan's rather laughable assertion that the sixty-two reasons not to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae that had been written by the priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, ever represented the "official" position of the priests who had been led for so long by the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, whose letter to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI in September of 1969 about the doctrinal deficiencies of the Novus Ordo is still posted on the website of the United States district of the Society of Saint Pius X (BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER'S LETTER TO POPE PAUL VI). That Bishop Rifan would assert what he did with a straight face represented what happens when those who had once taken stands against conciliarism and its liturgical progeny, the Novus Ordo, give up the fight and start to receive "recognition" and blandishments from the very revolutionaries they had once denounced with such courage and zeal.

The "Sixty-Two Reasons" composed by twenty-five priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney contained some very good points, although others reflect the view of the erroneous "resist and recognize" movement that a legitimate Roman Pontiff can promulgate a liturgy that is defective in its expression of the Faith, if not invalid on its face. (See: Response to Mike Duddy’s Open Letter, His Excellency Mark A. Pivarunas's examination of the necessity of the "long form" of the consecration.) Here are fifty-two of the sixty-two reasons composed by priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney that Bishop Rifan said in 2004 did not represent the "official" position of the priests of Campos:

1. Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of Catholic faith (which the Traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore, since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics!

2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation...a total change...a new creation" (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass).

3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths...can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever."*

4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery."*

5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all."*

6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of faith."*

7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).

8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..."*

9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50% (Holy See Statistics).

10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition...do not seem to us sufficient."*

11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord -- the traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.

12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).

13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).

14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist

15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran "Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant Error that all the people are priests.

16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.

17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!

18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass (Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian).

19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.

20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the true Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant minister Thurian said that a fruit of the New Mass "will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69).

21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis).

22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic doctrine).

23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar, facing people instead of tabernacle, Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g. Mass is only a meal, priest is only a president of the assembly, etc.).

24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic Prayers have abandoned the false perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69).

25. Because we are faced with a dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshiping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass of All Time

26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord" (Par. 7 Introd. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69).

27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be...the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Sirach 28:13).

28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.

29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy resembles the truth!

30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.

31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods use to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.

32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the New Mass!

33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks, "Why did we convert?"

34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000!

35. Because the traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)

36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.

37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance Error.

38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.

39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists, and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.

40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purifications of the priest's fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar cloths (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated."*

41. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a pope who was a Saint, Pius V, whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated.

42. Because the Errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.

43. Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity with permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid celebrations. "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it."*

44. Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.

45. Because in places where the traditional Mass is preserved, the faith and fervor of the people are greater, whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns. (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, ROMA, Buenos Aires # 69, 8/81)

46. Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new ideas, a new calendar -- in one word, a New Church, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform...do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of the Episcopal Synod.)

47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the traditional Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the New Mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainments in order to appeal to people.

48. Because the New Mass embodies numerous errors condemned dogmatically at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistoia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g. altar in form of a table. See Mediator Dei.)

49. Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical Church embracing all ideologies and all religions -- a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.

50. Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.

51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His-priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things that of their very nature must remain together." (Pope Pius XII)

52. Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship from man to God, but instead a horizontal worship between man and man.

* Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25, 1969 enclosing A Critical Study of The Novus Ordo Missae.

The Society of Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos, Brazil, was "reconciled" to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in late-2001. It took just under three years for Bishop Rifan to express "warm fuzzies" about the ethos of conciliarism viewed in "light of Tradition" and to back off from previous criticisms of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath, which includes the Novus Ordo Missae, making no further reference to Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer's withering critique of the Novus Ordo referenced above. This is what a "reconciliation" with enemies of the Catholic Faith does to men who once prized their integrity and whose very mentors taught them that such things as religious liberty and false ecumenism can never be reconciled to the Catholic Faith. "Reconciliation" with the enemies of the Catholic Faith in the counterfeit church of conciliarism results in a slow death of one's integrity, starting with convincing one that silence about truly egregious offenses (such as calling Mount Hiei in Japan, where the false worship of Buddhism is offered, "sacred") is a "necessity," winding up with one seeking to defend the indefensible by feats of illogic, emotion and irrationality that would have been denounced as such by that person before his decision to "reconcile" with the enemies of the Faith.

As noted above, my initial article about Bishop Rifan in September of 2004 stirred a great deal of anger in indult circles. A priest in the conciliar structures with whom I had been friendly for the better part of a decade was absolutely livid with me, turning red in the face about my criticism of Rifan even though he had not even read the article to which he was objecting so vehemently. Several speaking engagements were canceled. I had "rained on the parade," so to speak, and no amount of comparing the past statements of the late Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Campos priests with Bishop Rifan's backing off of those statements was going to be tolerated in the slightest.

The situation got worse within two months as evidence came to light that Rifan had participated in a "concelebrated" Novus Ordo service in Aparecida, Brazil, on September 8, 2004, prompting me to write "The Price of Recognition is Even Higher  Than We Thought," which appeared simultaneously in two different Catholic journals. Various stories emerged about what happened before Bishop Rifan admitted that he "simulated" the act of concelebration by raising his right hand, thereby simulating a sacrament, which is a grave sin. Another commentator noted the following about this act of treachery in an address given on November 10, 2004:

I just would like to give you some steps on one person who is the head of Campos. Before he was consecrated a bishop, Fr. Rifan, just a few months before, said in Rome to the Vicar General —who repeated it to Fr. Schmidberger, so we have it from a direct source —said, "I have no problem with celebrating the New Mass, but I don’t do it because it would cause trouble to the faithful." So when Rome is consecrating Rifan a bishop, they know already that he has no objection to celebrating the New Mass. I think it is important to see that. That is the first step.

I may say that there is even a step before. Before that, he goes with the diocesan Corpus Christi procession, and he says to those who oppose it, "If we would not have done that, we would have jeopardized the agreement with Rome." It shows you the direction.

The next step will be the jubilee of the diocese of Campos. For that occasion, of course, the local bishop is having a great ceremony, and Rome invites Bishop Rifan to go to that New Mass, to be there. And Bishop Rifan goes there. He does not participate in the sense of concelebrating the Mass, but he is there present with all his ecclesiastical ornaments, with a surplice and so on. He is really there at this New Mass.

The next step will be the Requiem [i.e., the Novus Ordo "Resurrection"] Mass for the bishop who had kicked them out, Bishop Navarro. At that Requiem Mass, you have Bishop Rifan there, and also the nuncio. The nuncio invites Bishop Rifan to go to Communion, and Bishop Rifan receives Communion at this New Mass.

The next step will be the Mass of Thanksgiving of the new cardinal of Sao Paolo. This time, Bishop Rifan is there again present at that New Mass; he is in the choir. He is not in his surplice; nevertheless, at the time of consecration, with the other priests and bishops celebrating, he raises his hands and says the words of consecration. A seminarian saw him.

And now, the 8th of September this year, we have photos and even a video of the Mass concelebrated by Bishop Rifan on the occasion of the centennial of the coronation of Our Lady of the Aparecida, who is the patroness of Brazil. He is concelebrating the New Mass, a New Mass where you have really scandalous happenings: ladies giving Communion in the hand, a ceremony of coronation where, among all the cardinals and bishops, there is a lady who is crowning our Lady, and so on. Trying to defend himself, he said "But I did not say the words of consecration." I may say, that makes it even worse, because that means he is cheating.

That’s the evolution: now he is two years a bishop, and he is already concelebrating the New Mass. You see, and that is the natural development which was announced from the start by the officials in Rome, Cottier, now Cardinal Cottier and Msgr. Perl. At the time of the agreement between Campos and Rome, Cottier said: "Now they have recognized the Council. The next step will be the new Mass." He even said, "There is a natural, psychological dynamic." And you see in Bishop Rifan a real, natural, clear demonstration of this phrase. EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions


Well, Bishop Fellay, the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of the Society of Saint Pius X, must be seeing Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan's reflection when he looks at himself in the mirror these days. Bishop Fellay has been making statements lately that demonstrate very plainly that his support of Joseph Ratzinger's Summorum Pontificum has exposed him once and for all as being on that same slippery slope onto which Bishop Rifan stepped when he was "reconciled" to the counterfeit church of conciliarism and was made one of its false "bishops" six months thereafter. The process has begun by which members of the Society of Saint Pius X are expected to accept revisionism about the Novus Ordo Missae and the entire ethos of conciliarism without for one moment considering any objective facts, no less the stands that had been taken, although inconsistently and sometimes in a contradictory manner, by the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

An Argentine newspaper, La Nacion, recently interviewed Bishop Fellay, who said the following when asked whether the Novus Ordo was valid:

-[La Nación] Is the new Mass valid?

-"It can be. But this is not important. What is important is that we see in it a danger which may lead to an erroneous thought. We say that this Mass has a Protestant flavor. Benedict XVI said that he regrets the excesses in the liturgy, but while we attack it, he defends it. The definition of the Mass which was given had three errors which are heresies. But it was so grave that they changed this definition." [Rorate note: Reference to the first version (1969) of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, number 7, altered in the official text of the 1970 Roman Missal (first Editio Typica).] RORATE CÆLI: Fellay speaks: "Turmoil" in the Church


Unimportant as to whether an alleged rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is valid? A Protestant flavor? A change in the definition of the Mass contained in the first edition of the General Instruction to (it's "to," not "of") the Roman Missal? Why did Angelus Press publish a book, Priest, Where is thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?, in 2004 to explain why seventeen priests who were not members of Society of Saint Pius X had walked out of the Novus Ordo (or had never offered it to begin with) if the new order service is simply flavored with a bit of Protestantism?

The validity or invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae is not unimportant. Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor did the groundbreaking work about the invalidity of the "short form" of the consecration. Others, such as Bishop Pivarunas, cited above, have done so as well. The objections made by the late Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and by the late Archbishop Lefebvre's close collaborator, the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, have to do with far more than a Protestant "flavor." The change of the definition of the Novus Ordo service in the first edition of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal was described as ambiguous a book published three years ago (I have included bracketed explanations in the quotation):

On November 12 [1969], through the Secretariat of State, Cardinal Seper sent the Pope [Paul VI] the results of his theologians' analysis of the Short Critical Study [of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci]: "The work Short Critical etc. contains lots of superficial, exaggerated, inaccurate, intemperate, and false statements." In the end, Paul VI asked the Consilium [the committed headed by Annibale Bugnini that constructed the Novus Ordo service] to correct Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis (which nonetheless remained ambiguous) but he did not correct the Novus Ordo Missae that went with it. (Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, p. 401.)


One of Bishop Fellay's fellow bishops, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, wrote that the change in Article 7 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal "nonetheless remained ambiguous." Bishop Fellay did not indicate this in his interview in La Nacion, engaging in a bit of Ratzinger's own Hegelian double-talk by softening the insidious and harmful nature of the Novus Ordo by speaking generally of a Protestant "flavor" while at the same time contending that the Society still attacks the Novus Ordo service. In other words, Bishop Fellay, who believes that Summorum Pontificum will permit the modernized version of the Mass of Tradition to eclipse the Novus Ordo Missae (rather than that modernized version of the Mass of Tradition being subsumed into the Novus Ordo service), believes that there can be "peaceful coexistence," at least for the time being, between the "two forms of the one Roman Rite," necessitating a change in the way one speaks of the "reformed liturgy" from that used on occasion by the late Archbishop Lefebvre:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechetics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says Saint Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today?  And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church —all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity. 

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto.  Amen. The 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre: Appendix I


As will be pointed out shortly, the authority of the Catholic Church simply cannot be responsible for the things condemned so rightly by Archbishop Lefebvre, who should have listened to the wisdom of the nine priests who understood that the no one who defects from the Catholic Faith can hold ecclesiastical office legitimately and thus have any authority to promulgate decrees and "reforms" that have been condemned by past popes and councils and/or fly in the face of the perennial teaching and authentic tradition of the Catholic Church. What we are seeing here, however, is the plain effect of being "una cum" (one with) heretics and apostates, men who praise false religions and who deny abjectly the Social Reign of Christ the King, on a daily basis.

Bishop Fellay's interview in La Nacion is not, unfortunately, the worst part of his recent trip to Argentina. Consider this report from an eyewitness to Bishop Fellay's talk in Cordoba, Argentina, on August 11, 2007:

On August 11, 2007, I attended the talk given by Bishop Bernard Fellay in Cordoba, Argentina.

I was surprised to hear him stating that Vatican II can be accepted if interpreted according to tradition, as the Vatican and Benedict XVI want us to believe. I positively don’t think so. I believe Vatican II was a revolution in the Church, as Cardinal Suenens qualified it. Actually it opened the doors for all the destruction of the Catholic Church we witnessed in the last four decades.

He also tried to justify Paul VI and presented him under a good light, saying that everything he did was the responsibility of the counsel of secretaries, who really decided what to do in his pontificate. Bishop Fellay went so far as to exonerate Paul VI for the Novus Ordo Mass he approved. According to him, Paul VI signed it without reading it, since he entirely trusted those secretaries.

It gave me the impression that this talk was meant to create an atmosphere of distension among traditionalists toward Vatican II and the “reform of the reform” of Pope Benedict XVI, in order to soften reactions. Fellay, Buddhism, Text and Context 


Everything Giovanni Montini did was the responsibility of the "counsel of secretaries, who really decided what to do in his "pontificate"? Exonerating Paul VI, who reviewed very carefully the details of the work of Bugnini's Consilium? These assertions are so boldly revisionist in nature that they are breathtaking, statements that not even "Monsignor" Gilles Wach of the conciliar Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, an "Ecclesia Dei" community, has ever made publicly. Indeed, they are attempts to rewrite history.

The late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini himself documented in his nearly one thousand page book, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975, that he kept Giovanni Montini closely informed on the proceedings of the Consilium, the committee that concocted the Novus Ordo service, and that it was Montini's own initiative that the traditional Offertory was removed and replaced with Talmudic "table" prayers. Paul VI didn't read the Novus Ordo? He helped to plan it step-by-step.

Everything Giovanni Montini did was the responsibility of the "counsel of secretaries, who really decided what to do in his "pontificate"?

Excuse me, Giovanni Montini simply read the words of his secretaries when he dethroned Christ the King by these words delivered at the United Nations on October 4, 1965?

Our message is meant to be, first of all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty institution. This message comes from Our historical experience. It is as an "expert in humanity" that We bring to this Organization the suffrage of Our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and Our own, convinced as We are that this Organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace.

In saying this, We feel We are speaking with the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward. History and Background, October US Papal Visit

Does Bishop Fellay really believe that Giovanni Montini did not believe each and every single word of this address with his whole Modernist heart? Does Bishop Fellay believe that these words are compatible with the Catholic Faith, expressed so beautifully by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922?

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.


Furthermore, does Bishop Fellay really believe that Giovanni Montini did not believe in the words he uttered in two successive "General Audience" addresses, November 19 and 26, 1969, demonstrating his absolute commitment to the Novus Ordo Missae?

We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. . . . This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will be given to these questions and to others like them, arising from the innovation. (Giovanni Montini, November 18, 1969, General Audience address, quoted in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, Remnant Press, 2002, p. 163.)

We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. . . . A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. . . . We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. . . . So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves.This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. . . .

It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than those loftiest of our Church's values?

The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic. Understanding of prayer is worth more than silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more--particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech. (Giovanni Montini, General Audience address, November 26, 1969, quoted in The Great Facade, pp. 163-1964..)


Does Bishop Fellay wish to contend that Montini's late friend, Jean Guitton, had it wrong when he explained Montini's mind concerning the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service?

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)


Does Bishop Fellay wish to contend that Giovanni did not believe in religious liberty is, that his unwillingness to address the direct contradiction between this conciliarist heresy with the Catholic Faith in his September 11, 1976, meeting with Archbishop Lefebvre was merely "diplomatic" and did not bespeak a complete inability to reconcile these novelties with the Faith of our fathers?

Montini: "Why do yo not accept the Council? You signed the decrees."

Lefebvre: "There were two that I did not sign."

Montini: "Yes, two, religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes."

(Archbishop Lefebvre's mental note: "I thought at the time: 'I signed he others out of respect for the Holy Father. He [Montini] went on.")

Montini: "And why not religious liberty?"

Lefebvre: "It contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX."

Montini: "Let's leave that aside! We are not here to discuss theology."

(Archbishop Lefebvre's mental note: "I thought to myself: 'This is unbelievable.'") (Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, pp. 491-492.)


Does Bishop Fellay believe that some Vatican secretary forced him to genuflect in front of the schismatic and heretical Athenagoras, thereby degrading the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church he believed himself to hold.

Does Bishop Fellay believe that some Vatican secretary sold out the courageous Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty behind his, Montini's back?

Does Bishop Fellay believe that Archbishop Montini was forced by secretaries to reveal to Soviet agents the name of priests who had been sent behind the Iron Curtain by Pope Pius XII and then murdered?

Does Bishop Fellay believe that his revisionist history is going to be taken seriously by informed Catholics? It is one thing for one to believe against all objective evidence that Joseph Ratzinger is a friend of the Catholic Faith and that Summorum Pontificum will help to restore that Faith. It is quite another to rewrite history so as to soften opposition to the "Second" Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo service.

Giovanni Montini was fully committed to the "Second" Vatican Council and to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Archbishop Lefebvre should have listened to the priests who understood very clearly that a man who believed what Giovanni Montini did had disqualified himself from the holding of ecclesiastical office and that it is wrong to pray to be "una cum" with such an apostate. Consider His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn's reflection on the twentieth anniversary of the expulsion of "The Nine" from the Society of Saint Pius X:

April 27th, 2003 passed without fanfare, yet it was a memorable day for nine priests. Twenty years ago on this day, the break between the so-called “nine priests” and the Society of Saint Pius X was consummated.

~ ~ ~


Hindsight always sees clearly. Now, after twenty years, the question can be calmly asked: In the light of the events of the past twenty years, were the nine priests right or wrong in taking their stand against Archbishop Lefebvre?

To answer this question, let us look at the progress of the issues.

First, the underlying issue: the ambivalence of Archbishop Lefebvre toward the Novus Ordo. What fruit has it produced? In the first place, it has produced the fruit of utter confusion and inconsistency in the minds of the SSPX faithful and priests. They are a house divided. Some are hardliners, some are soft. Some are closet sedevacantists. Some cannot wait for the day of reconciliation with the Vatican, whereas others vow that they will leave the day such a reconciliation goes through. Yet they are all worshipping in the same pews. The SSPX hierarchy cannot make up its mind about the prudence of reconciling. Over the years the flip‑flop has continued to the point of making one dizzy. Now the reconciliation is on; now it is off. Now it is good; now it is bad. It will happen; it will not happen. Today it will not happen; tomorrow it will happen. Today John Paul is the antichrist; tomorrow he is the Vicar of Christ; the next day he is not Catholic; the following day he is the Holy Father. Swing to the left; swing to the right.

In the second place, the SSPX faithful are constantly staring at the specter of a reconciliation with the Modernists which will destroy over thirty years of resistance to Modernism. Their churches, schools convents, and seminaries can be yanked from under them in a moment's notice, whenever the confused management of the SSPX thinks that it is the right time. One never knows when Bishop Fellay is going to give away the store to the Novus Ordo.

So I say that the nine priests were definitely right in taking their stand, so as to place the traditional movement on a solid and consistent theological basis, and to preserve the churches and other institutions from being, despoiled by the Novus Ordo hierarchy.

Let us turn to the question of the John XXIII liturgy. Time showed that the acceptance of these reforms was a condition of reconciliation with the Modernists. This reason alone was sufficient to take a stand against them. But beyond this reason, we were right in preserving the sacred liturgy from the seeds of its own corruption implanted by Bugnini. It is impossible to object to the Novus Ordo, when you have accepted the seeds of the Novus Ordo embedded in the John XXIII liturgy. And so we see that the confused SSPX management is ready to accept the Novus Ordo as a legitimate rite, and to work side by side with it in a diocesan setting. Archbishop Lefebvre even accepted to have a Novus Ordo Mass said in Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris as one of the concessions to the Modernists in the now famous Protocol of May 5th, 1988. The retention of the pre‑1955 liturgy is a firm no to any Modernist liturgical innovation. ....

What became of the marriage annulment question? Incredibly, the solution which the SSPX applied to this problem was to found their own marriage tribunal! This is clearly a usurpation of the authority of the Catholic Church. It is clear that we would never have been able to accept this, and we would have had to break over this issue alone.

What about the validity of the Novus Ordo priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations? The SSPX accepts these as valid. Take note that in the conditions set down by Bishop Fellay to the Vatican for their return, there is no mention at all of the problem of invalid ordinations and consecrations in the new rite. So the nine priests were right again here to take their stand.


Painful as the separation was, therefore, it was nonetheless a prudent and wise decision which is confirmed by the events of the past twenty years. The nine priests, and other priests in this country and elsewhere in the world who made similar decisions, have placed the traditional movement on a firm theological and liturgical basis.

The SSPX priests and faithful often boast about the size, the international character, and the organizational unity of their group, in contrast to the small numbers and lack of organization among the sedevacantists. The SSPX faithful are like the Titanic passengers, who were enamoured by the beauty and strength of their ship, but oblivious to the fact that their captain had set aside, again and again, reports of deadly pack ice.

They, take their grandeur, numbers, and monetary success as a sign of God's blessing.

But is it? Is it considered good health to have a great athletic body, but inside to have a growing tumor which will bring death to it in six months?

Do we say that someone is blessed by God if he is rich, but his mind is so confused that he cannot make a single coherent statement?

Which is more valuable, the fifty carat rhinestone, or the one carat diamond?

The grand house which the SSPX has built is a house of straw which is ready to be blown down by the fuggy breath of the wolf in red Castrillon-Hoyos. When it collapses, and the only house left standing is the house of brick built by the nine priests and others like them, who took their stand against the spirit of compromise, then who will be the heroes?


Joseph Ratzinger is now the wolf in white. The spirit of compromise is indeed being made manifest in the words and acts of Bishop Bernard Fellay, who has proved his own criticism of Bishop Fernando Rifan to have been a prophetic description of what would happen within his own house of straw which was weakened at its very inception by false Gallican principles of "resist and recognize."

Obviously, this is nothing new. The priests of the Society of Saint Pius X who left after Archbishop Lefebvre's episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988, to form the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter have constructed their own house of straw. The situation is so bad within the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter that one of its "priests" told us back in February outside of a funeral home that he had no obligation to oppose error. This is what he was taught. This is the modus vivendi of the entire indult world (now the larger universe of the Motu world), where even diocesan "priests" once noted for a loud defense of tradition and scathing criticisms of conciliar "popes" and the Novus Ordo service (called the "FM"--False Mass--by one conciliar priest who was in my acquaintance for a number of years), if only behind the safety of closed doors, were tamed by pastoral appointments and curial blandishments into silent submission and a mockery of those in whom they had once confided their hatred of Modernism and the Novus Ordo.

High Anglicans--or Anglo-Catholics--are comfortable with what they consider to be the beauties of their liturgy as the their false church's doctrinal beliefs and pastoral practices become more bizarre over time. The 1984 and 1988 indults made many, although far from all, traditionally-minded Catholics comfortable with the beauties of a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition while remaining deaf, dumb, blind, and mute in the face of continued assaults against the Catholic Faith. Such people have no problem being "una cum" a man who calls Mount Hiei sacred and who believes that past dogmatic statements represent but mere "anchorages" that pertain only to a given moment but lose their relevancy as the "needs" of "modern" man change. Whatever this is, ladies and gentlemen, this is not Catholicism, which explains that one must accept the totality of the Catholic Faith, which excludes any accommodation to error, as Pope Leo XIII wrote in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12).


Yes, it took me far, far too long to recognize that "The Nine," who placed loyalty to truths of the Catholic Faith above loyalty to any man, no matter how personally holy and devout, were correct and that they were others, such as Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M. and Father Robert McKenna, O.P., and the priests of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, among many others, who had taken courageous actions of their own even before case of "The Nine" had made news publicly. I condemn no one who does not yet see the fact that Catholic truth rests on the side of those who have borne such a courageous witness to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church for so long. It is simply my prayer, however, that more and more Catholics will recognize that any kind of contact with conciliarism results in the death of one's integrity and the inevitable efforts to defend the indefensible.

May Our Lady, she who is the Help of Christians, watch over and protect our true bishops and priests in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the legitimacy of its false shepherds. May the sacrifices that we make to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as her consecrated slaves help to support the work of these true bishops and priests, who are maintaining the integrity of Catholic doctrine and the very sacramental life of the Church, especially by means of the Rosaries that we offer her and by the voluntary acts of penance and mortification we undertake in this month of September, which is dedicated to the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady and to the Holy Cross of her Most Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Our Lady will see us out of this nightmare of the Mystical Passion and Death of her Divine Son. May we keep her company at the foot of the Cross each day in the catacombs, giving thanks to the Blessed Trinity for having access to the true Faith and to true bishops and priests who are helping us get home to Heaven--and to maintain our sanity--in a sea of apostasy and betrayal that leads to insanity and irrationality as the norm of what passes for "Catholic" life today.

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us!


Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths. Amen.


All to you, Blessed Mother. All to your Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you. Save souls!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Giles, pray for us.

Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.

Saint Rose of Lima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.

Pope Saint Zephyrinus, pray for us.

Saint Louis IX, King of France, pray for us.

Saint Jane Frances de Chantal, pray for us.

Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.

Saint Philip Benizi, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint John Eudes, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us, pray for us.

Saint Agapitus, pray for us.

Saint Helena, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.

Saints Monica, 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.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Antony of the Desert, 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 Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Turibius, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, 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 Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Basil the Great, 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 Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, 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.

Saint Louis de Montfort, 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.

Father Maximilian Kolbe,M.I., 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.