1 Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 October 8, 2011

Preparing To Sign On The Dotted Line?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There was a "retreat and discussion" that took place yesterday, Friday, October 7, 2011, the Feast of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, at the Society of Saint Pius X's district headquarters in Albano, Italy. The following announcement was issued after the conclusion of the meeting:



On October 7, 2011, a meeting of all those in charge of the Society of St Pius X was held in Albano, Italy, during which the Superior General, H. E. Bishop Bernard Fellay, presented the content of the Doctrinal Preamble, handed over to him by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, at the Vatican, during last September 14 meeting.

During this day, the twenty-eight persons in charge of the Society of St Pius X present at the meeting – seminary rectors, district superiors from all over the world – manifested a profound unity in their will to maintain the Faith in its integrity and its fullness, faithful to the lesson which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left them, according to St Paul’s “Tradidi quod et accepi – I have handed over what I myself have received” (I Cor 15:3).

Following this work meeting, the study of the Doctrinal Preamble – of which the content still remains confidential – will be pursued and further analysed at the level of the General Counsel of the Society of St Pius X, by the Superior General and his two Assistants, Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain Nely, enabling them to present an answer to the Roman proposals in a reasonable time. ( Press Release from the SSPX's General House.)


Here is a photograph released after the meeting had taken place yesterday:




Conspicuously absent from the photograph taken yesterday was Bishop Richard Williamson. It is evidently the case, of course, that When Caiphas Speaks, Benedict Listens. So does Bishop Fellay.

It certainly appears at this juncture that, as has been discussed on this site four over four years now, that Bishop Fellay is ready, willing and able to sign on the dotted line without sweating the details, doing so in such a way as to make sure that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Talmudic minders are not displeased. 

The spirit of apostasy and blasphemy and sacrilege has not gone away as a result of the formation of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, or the unconditional surrenders of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, and the Transalpine Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay Island off of the coast of Scotland and the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France. The spirit of conciliarism reigns supreme, something that was on full display last month during the false "pontiff's" recent pilgrimage to his native Federal Republic of Germany (see Modernist At Work, part one, Modernist At Work, part two, and Modernist At Work, part three). It is not going to go way once Bishop Fellay signs on that dotted line. Indeed, his silence about some of the outrages that took place in Germany last month speaks volumes about his willingness to finally submit without reservation to the man he accepts as the true pope but whose authority he has in the past seen fit to defy.

Although I have written about conciliarism ad nauseam and ad infinitum, becoming rather wearied of doing so yet again as there is little new to discuss that has not been touched upon at length in previous articles, I did think that it might be useful to the readers of this site to consider how an American author, the late Robert Leckie, who was born in 1910 and died in 2001 after a distinguished career as a journalist and author of books on the military history of the United States of America,  viewed the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "new Mass" in the closing pages of a book, American and Catholic, that I am using as an invaluable resource for the writing of Conversion in Reverse, my book on how the heresy of Americanism and its insidious ethos led tot he triumph of conciliarism.

Mind you, Mr. Leckie was a partisan of Father Isaac Thomas Hecker, the founder of the Society of Saint Paul (the Paulist Fathers), whose writing and life's work helped to propagate the heresy of Americanism. Leckie was of the erroneous belief that Americanism was a "phantom heresy." This is very ironic as Americanism is indeed a celebration of the "world" and of the Catholic's taking his place in it while being content to practice his Faith quietly even though he was very critical and concerned about the "Second" Vatican Council's own celebration of the "world." He did not see that the Potomac had flowed into the Tiber just as surely as had the Rhine. And he was confused on a number of points, including his erroneous belief that the Council of Trent had placed the Church in a "spiritual strait-jacket."

Despite these errors and confusion, however, Mr. Leckie did ask some very pertinent questions that are even more relevant today. The questions that Leckie raised are very relevant now as he considered himself a dispassionate observer, a journalist, who was concerned about the future of Holy Mother Church. Although he was sympathetic to the "traditionalist" cause, he was not really a traditionalist, simply a Catholic who was concerned about the future of the Church. If one who was not a traditionalist could ask such questions in 1970, just five years after the end of the "Second" Vatican Council and one year after the introduction of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, how can anyone, no less a traditionalist bishop, pretend as though the problems that Leckie saw forty-one years ago are the result of the rise of a counterfeit religion headed men by who have defected from the Catholic Faith?

Permit me, therefore, to transcribe a few of the closing pages from Robert Leckie's American and Catholic. The text really speaks for itself. What is remarkable is that Mr. Leckie was given the graces by Our Lady to see the problems and to write about them publicly when so few others were doing so:


Traditionally, the Christian or at least the Catholic teaching on a man's duties toward society was expressed by Thomas More's remark that the world will be good when men are good, thus placing the emphasis on the individual, on the gospel of salvation. But now the American Church under the impetuous urging of the New Breed appears to be shifting toward the social gospel advocated by liberal Protestantism during its gallant but unsuccessful attempt to confront modernity. In effect, they are dividing the indivisible Christian recipe for salvation--faith and good works--and giving precedence to good works. Reversing Christ, they put Martha over Mary. And here, in this American Catholic cold war, there has entered on the side of authority, if not necessarily on the side of the hierarchy, a huge, unheard-from group of Catholics who are in some ways comparable to President Nixon's "great, silent majority."

These are the traditionalists. They are not conservative, they are not reactionary, and they are just as intelligent and informed as the intellectuals of the New Breed. Unhappily, few of them edit "impartial" journals of opinion or have columns to write. In the main, they are middle-aged or elderly Catholics, priests and laymen, who are afraid that the "fresh air" which Pope John wanted to let into the Church had turned into a tornado. They fear that "renewal" is actually the kind of reform that empties out the baby with the bath. It seems to them that the New Breed are trying to get Christ out of Christianity, and they are mindful of the Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr's judgment on the "liberalization," i.e., watering-down of his own faith: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." To those innovators who appear so zealous to reform the work of Jesus Christ, they might quote the cynical Talleyrand's remark to a member of the Directory who wished to form his own faith based on reason: "To found his religion, Jesus Christ suffered and died. I suggest you do something of the same." The traditionalist view if another word for accommodation. In Jacques Maritain's phrase it is a "genuflection to the world."

If religion is not a criticism, it is nothing; and hen it ceases to criticize what is loosely called "the world," it ceases to be a religion. True enough, this concept may be open to the charge of being based on "old-fashioned morality," but the fact is that the American Church was until recently the last major repository of any reasoned or reasonable concept of morality in the United States, and that, if the Universal Church should decide to submit to the current moral fashion of permissiveness, she will have abandoned her authority at the one critical period in history when it was needed most. To say "authority," of course, is not to say the medieval or autocratic authority wielded by a prelate like Cardinal McIntyre [of Los Angeles]. But neither is the solution to the abuse of authority a swing of the pendulum to the extreme of permissiveness. Furthermore, the world judges itself by its own standards, and these are as much a compound of sin, selfishness and blind materialism as of nobility, energy and efficiency. In truth, the world has only one standard: success. Is the Church founded by the Divine Failure to make the standard of success the norm to which it must adapt itself? Can it really "secularize" Christianity, as so many spokesmen for the New Breed are urging, without become secular--even as liberal Protestantism?

Again to quote Maritain, a thinker whose theories had much to do with the advent of aggiornamento: "Like Christ, the Church is of God, not of the world. And we have to choose to be friends of the world, or friends of God." This is a hard saying, but since when was Christianity a facile faith? From Jesus Christ himself came repeated warnings against the world. The Gospel of St. John is full of them. "The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, the works thereof are evil." "In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world." "My kingdom is not of this world." St. James, Christ's own kinsman,  was ever harsher. "Adulterers, know you know that the friendship of the world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God." "Love not the world or the things of the world."

It may well be argued by the New Breed that it would be cowardly for the Church not to confront modernity, that it would be a betrayal of the Holy Spirit for her not to divest herself of the spiritual strait jacket laced about her by the defensive strictures of the Council of Trent [Droleskey note: the Council of Trent, of course, met under the direction of God the Holy Ghost]. To this, none but an ostrich could say anything other than "Amen!" Nevertheless, both rapport and rapprochement imply an exchange of views between parties meeting under their own standards. Anything else is submission. Thus, if the world's standard is success, then the Church should strive to understand it more clearly; she should belittle it less and also abandon her own emphasis on resignation or the traveler complex. But she must never forget that her own standard is the Cross, the crucified Christ, "unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block and unto the Gentiles foolishness." Is it possible that today's Gentiles, for which read secularism or modernity, are preparing to alter this attitude? Hardly. The religious revival of the late forties and the fifties is already on the wane, dying quickly down like a paper fire. The twentieth century no longer appears a particularly auspicious one for religion. In the Catholic Church, conversions have fallen off sharply and attendance and collections, under the impact of the defection of many of the older Catholics who feel that they have been turned out of their ancestral home by the innovations of the New Breed, are also down. Other religions report similar hard times. At an interfaith meeting in Istanbul in February of 1969, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto and Zoroastrian representatives all testified to a reduction in growth.

The problems appear to be one of indifferentism, a kind of religious leveling which regards any faith as just as good as the next one, and all as the product of human speculation and regulation. No creed, says indifferentism, can speak with authority or certainty. The Catholic Church, of course, always did--claiming Christ as its invisible and the Pope as its visible head. but now, Christ and his cross are glossed over and the Pope is ignored. The scrape the barnacles of the centuries from the bark of Peter the New Breed appears willing to stove in the planking as well, and Christianity is cleansed by washing Christ away. This is not exaggeration. In many Catholic colleges and universities today the teaching of the Pope counts for so little that his decisions on such matters as birth control are not only discounted or defied by his very magisterium is made a debatable question. [Droleskey note: This was because the "pope," Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, was no pope at all. He was a man who defied anathematized propositions and embraced errors and heresies that had been condemned consistently by the Catholic Church.]

As for Jesus Christ, one might well enter any of these institutions or one of the new Catholic churches and say, with Mary Magdalene: "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." True enough, the colleges are ending an era when lay teachers were looked upon as clerical employees rather than associates, or when all scholarship had to be undertaken "under correction," and in the simplicity, grace and function of some contemporary church architecture one might well say that here are wood, stone and steel speaking with the very spirit of our times. Nevertheless, one must still ask: Where is Christ? Is he at Notre Dame, now under lay control, where one professor of theology attacks the resurrection and another the papal pronouncements on birth control, or at St. Peter's College [in Jersey City, New Jersey], where a third teaches "Marxist Christianity," whatever that is? Is he on the Catholic campus at all? One must doubt it, if one judges from the poll of students of sixty-nine Catholic colleges which put Jesus Christ as the fifth most important man in history and John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert as Numbers One and Two. Here is Christianity not only cleansed of its Founder, here is the testimony to the absolute failure of the history departments in Catholic education. If not Christ first in history, then certainly Alexander or Augustus, Moses or Buddha, Socrates or Aristotle, Galileo or Columbus, Lenin or Luther, or any of those geniuses after whom mankind was never the same--but the Kennedy brothers? Is this the New Breed's triumph over parochialism?

To seek for Christ on many college campuses, then, appears to be a vain search indeed. If He is there at all, it is often as a simple man, a fanatic perhaps, who only gradually became conscious of His having issued from God, and whose virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc., all may be reduced to the natural order. To find Him in the writings of the New Breed, except as a perfunctory bow in some final or omnibus paragraph, is most difficult indeed. One may read chapter after chapter in a New Breed apostle such as Father Greeley (who offers John Kennedy as a Doctor of the Church!) and not see His name at all, nor that of God, His Almighty Father. One will find, however, frequent allusions to the Holy Spirit, which seems suggest that the "renewed" American Church might be preparing to come down heavily on the third person of the Holy Trinity.

Although the Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, He may actually be quite acceptable to the modern world. He has no virgin birth, no reincarnation, no hypostatic union, or resurrection, or miracles or ignominious death to be defended against the doubters of modernity. Nor is a creator God like the Father Almighty, which removes all necessity to defend design against accident; or the deity who made a compact with the Jews, thus making His uncomfortable entry into human history, His unseemly entry, even, if one remembers Him as "the God of Battles." But the Holy Spirit has never appeared on earth, like Jesus Christ who trod the soil and drank the wine of Judea; or the Father Almighty, who spoke to Abraham and Isaac, changed Jacob's name to Israel and appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush. It is true that the Virgin Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit [Droleskey note: Our Lady was preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin as she was conceived in the natural manner; Our Lord was conceived in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost], but inasmuch as the virgin birth is already in question, this does not seem too great a difficulty in the way of reconciling Catholicism with the modern world. otherwise, the Holy Spirit does not do anything. He merely "inspires" and "comes upon" people is "received" by them, or else He is invoked. But he is not an actor in human history, and He is therefore a much more comfortable or convenient God than the other members of the Holy Trinity. thus, one may expect to hear rather more about Him and less about Christ from the missionaries of the New Breed. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 364-368.)


One will see that Leckie was confused on a number of points, not the least of which was concerning the working God the Holy Ghost in the  life of the Church as it is He Who is our Sanctifier, He Whose working through the Sacraments makes it possible for us to receive Sanctifying Grace. The point that Leckie seems to have been making, however imprecise in terminology, is nevertheless valid. That is, the conciliar revolutionaries, of whom the then Father Joseph Ratzinger was a leading light, emphasized the "direct" impulse of God the Holy Ghost within souls as a means to ignore and then totally override the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church. Even though he seems not to have realized the contradiction, Leckie was criticizing the very phenomenon of Americanism that he had dismissed as but a "phantom heresy" earlier in his book. Mr. Leckie was incapable of realizing that the very problems he critiqued in the final pages of his book were the result of the Americanist seeds that had been planted in the Nineteenth Century by the Americanist cardinals and bishops whom he viewed as attempting to "release" the Church from the "strait jacket" that had been "imposed" by the Council of Trent, which was indeed the work of God the Holy Ghost.

Pope Leo XIII understood the false prophetic spirit of Americanism's penchant for relying upon the "direct inspiration" of God the Holy Ghost in souls as though He did not speak definitively to men through the magisterium of the Holy Church, which can never contradict itself as there not a shadow of contradiction, change or paradox within the Most Blessed Trinity:




And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs- and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. "For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who give's unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit."-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.

Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. "He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase."-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God's loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.

For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, "What dost Thou wish me to do?" yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: "Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do."

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one's self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself? (Pope L:eo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

The "New Breed" about which Robert Leckie complained so much in the final pages of American and Catholic was not so "new" after all. The members of this "new breed" were simply the embodiment of an ethos that had been promoted by American bishops for a long time, an ethos that Pope Leo XIII recognized as false and condemned in a true prophetic sense as being opposed to the good of souls and thus of the civil state itself.

Leckie, though, certainly had some interesting insights concerning the revolution that had been brewing for centuries but had made itself fully manifest in the 1960s and thereafter. The problems that Leckie cited have not improved. They have worsened. They must continue to worsen in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as that which is false cannot help but worsen over the course of time.

Two more sets of excerpts from the final pages of American and Catholic will be provided to demonstrate the fact that even a man who was confused about the root causes of the problems he critiqued had a few insights that are as true today as they were forty-one years ago now:

Whether or not this shift in emphasis is conscious or deliberate is difficult to say. In fairness, it should be suggested that many who embrace it are perhaps not aware of the consequences more than they perceive the destructiveness of the popular new theories advanced by the late French Jesuit, Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. They apparently are not disturbed by theories which turn Christianity upside-down. Teilhard has gotten rid of the Fall and Original Sin and the consequent need for a Redeemer. Catholic Christianity always held to the Incarnation, the proposition that God who made man became man to save what He had made. The story of Adam and Eve and the Fall shows that man was not equal to God's great gamble of free will. He preferred himself to God. This was the first sin, Original Sin, and after it man was unable to help himself. He had to have a Redeemer, and he was Christ the Savior. To Teilhard, however, the God-man is not Jesus the Savior but "the evolutionary principle of universe in motion." To simplify, and admittedly only a trained philosopher or theologian should attempt to simplify a writer as difficult as Teilhard, he has put perfection at the end of creation, not at the start, where it was lost and only to be regained through the merits of Christ the Redeemer. In short, the is really no need for Jesus Christ.

Again looking for Christ: is he in the Churches? Certainly he is present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar [Droleskey note: well, not really], and some "old-fashioned" churches still represent him on their crucifixes or in their stained-glass windows. But there are many Catholic parishes in America where the crucifix has been taken down, along with those too-disturbing stations of the cross so crudely daubed with red paint, and a Catholic of another century entering some contemporary churches could be forgiven if he thought he had stumbled by accident into, say, a Quaker meetinghouse. Charming in a chaste and simple way, some of the new design seems to arrive at this quiet beauty by the simple expedient of excluding anything powerful, harsh, or provactive--especially the crucifix--which might suggest a religion based on sacrifice and suffering. Once again, the baby has vanished with the bath; and so, the new design is not actually simply but only bland. Our God is no longer a Jealous God. he is the Permissive One, and we must not embarrass Him with anything but the must demure devotion. Yearning for the old atmosphere of the sacral and the reverent, the traditionalist had better get him to a bank or a brokerage house, where the Sons of Mammon, at least, still take their god seriously.

Even the sacrifice of the Mass has become a source of dismay to the traditionalist. For the liturgical reformers to have achieved their great objective of having Latin all but abolished form the Roman rite and the various vernaculars put in its place was truly an attainment of the highest order, and one on which they would deserve congratulation, had they not celebrated their success by introducing such indecencies as the "tom-tom mass," the so-called "folk mass" accompanied by guitars in the hands of youths who know ever so much more about Christianity that their elders. Apparently, to the New Breed, the acorn is worth more than the oak, and the adult is the ruination of the child. As a result, many older Catholics, devout people who suffered social ostracism or lost advancement or employment because of their courageous witness to their religion, men and women who sacrificed for years for the faith that they loved, have simply walked out of the American Church in disgust. For them, all the awe and reverence and mystery has gone out of the Mass. Chesterton said that all drama must be a foot above the ground, but the drama of the new Mass is now on everybody's level--and perhaps even a little lower.

The new liturgy, they feel, is soulless. It may be more accurate as a result of biblical scholarship, but it has no poetry in it. Thus, many older Catholics say, in effect, that if they were asked to swear on the new Bible they would not feel obliged to the truth. Traditionalist horror, however, only amuses some of the New Breed, especially the members of the New Breed, specially members of the so-called "Underground Church," who find any attachment to "old-fashioned" ritual or "archaic" parochialism a kind of quaint Neaderthalism. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 368-370.)


No, the replacement of the universal language of the Church, Latin, with the vernacular, was not something to applaud as Latin, a dead language, signifies the permanent, stability and immutability of God Himself, communicating also the mysterium tremendum that is the unbloody representation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth in atonement for our sins. The indecencies that Leckie observed and condemned were the direct result of the loss of the sacred that is conveyed by the Latin, signifying as they do a new liturgy for a new religion.

Leckie's insights in this regard were echoed some years later by another non-traditionalist, the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, in his Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)


The truth is, of course, that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is itself responsible for the loss of the Faith on the part of countless millions upon millions of Catholics worldwide, a point that has been made on this site repeatedly (for a sampling of a few of the articles on this subject in the past fourteen months or so, please see With Perfection Staring Directly At Them, Turning Perfection Aside For A More Perfect Banality, Taking The Obvious For Granted, Enough Spin To Make Our Heads Spin, Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part two, Transforming the Extraordinary Into the Ordinary and The Better Mousetrap.) The Novus Ordo itself is at the root of the abuses engendered by its revolutionary spirit against Catholic Faith and Worship, and it is not going to be "corrected" by the changes being introduced on November 27, 2011, the First Sunday of Advent.

Even the "reformed" Novus Ordo service contains options galore for the "presiders" and their liturgical committees.

To wit, those who stage the Novus Ordo service can say a few "introductory" words at its beginning after they make the Sign of the Cross as they face the people. It is interesting to note that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition begins with the priest addressing God with the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. The Novus Ordo begins with the "presider" speaking to the people.

Those who stage the Novus Ordo service can choose one of several "options" for what is called "the Penitential Rite." They can use the modernized version of the Confiteor followed by the Kyrie eleison. They can simply recite the Kyrie eleison. Or they can make up words of their own choosing ("For making us so wonderful, O Lord, we give you thanks, Lord have mercy. . . ." yes, I have heard this with my own ears).

In the United States of America for example, there are, in addition the four "Eucharistic Prayers" that came with the original "cracker jack box" in which the Novus Ordo was contained as the "surprise" for those who love junk liturgy, three "Eucharistic prayers" for children's Masses (see: Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children I - III) and two for "reconciliation" (see: Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation I-II). There are also four other "Eucharistic prayers," derived from the now infamous "Swiss Synod Eucharistic Prayer," for "various needs" (see:Eucharistic Prayers for Various Needs and Occasions I - IV). Among those "other" needs are (1) "The Church on the Way to Unity," which means, once again for the slow learners out there, that the Mark of Unity does not exist in the Church of Christ that is the Catholic Church; (2) "God Guides the Church on the Way to Salvation;" (3) "Jesus, Way to the Father;" and (4) "Jesus, the Compassion of God."  

These facts are readily available. Indeed, I had known about the "nine" "Eucharistic prayers" personally from my years of unfortunate involvement in the Novus Ordo world, suffering through a variety of "offerings" this abomination throughout the United States and Canada before withdrawing from that world of confusion and sacrilege and ceaseless revolutionary novelty and change. I must admit, however, that I had not known until four years ago that the so-called "Swiss Synod Eucharistic Prayer," which was composed in 1974 and received approbation from the Modernists in the Vatican in 1994 for use universally in the counterfeit church conciliarism, served as the basis of four additional "Eucharistic prayers," bringing the total number of such "approved" "prayers" in the United States of America to thirteen. Any talk of a stable liturgical rite, even absent an admission of the Novus Ordo service's invalidity, that is capable of communicating the immutability and transcendence of the Blessed Trinity is absurd in the context of the synthetic novelty known as the Novus Ordo service, which cannot help but breed instability and uncertainty in parish liturgical life. And this is to say nothing of the gross sacrileges that have taken place in the context of so-called "papal" liturgies around the world in the past thirty years or more.

Nothing has changed. The options galore that are made readily available in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal makes the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service a singularly apt device to destroy the Catholic Faith as it was designed by its architects to do in the very first place. It is the Novus Ordo's war against Catholic Faith and Worship that has driven millions of Catholics away from the true Church and that has swelled the ranks of various evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant sects, and it is the Novus Ordo's war against Catholic Faith and Worship that has destroyed the sensus Catholicus of many, although far from all, of the Catholics who expose themselves to this offense against the Most Blessed Trinity on a weekly, not daily, basis (see They Like It!).

All one needs to do to understand the revolutionary spirit with which the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is imbued is to read Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph 15, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)


Acts of outward penance belong to every age in the history of the Catholic Church, unless, that is, Our Lady herself, the very Mother of God, was wrong when she said:

"Penance! Penance! Penance!. . . .  Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners." (Our Lady's Words at Lourdes.)

"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners? (May 13, 1917.)

"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort." (May 13, 1917.)

"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice themselves and pray for them." (August 19, 1917.) (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)



Mr. Leckie did not realize that the liturgical revolutionaries were honest enough to tell us very openly, very publicly that it was their direct intention to destroy the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Why do we tarry to believe them?

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

"[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. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. 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.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)


With all of the late Robert Leckie's understandable confusion about how the problems had occurred and his misunderstanding of the dogmatic nature of the Council of Trent and the permanence provided by the Immemorial Rite of Tradition as offered in Holy Mother Church's mother tongue, one must marvel at his final set of observations in American and Catholic about rise of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and the decline in the numbers of consecrated religious:



Meanwhile, the preoccupation with sex--not to say veneration of it--which seems to have been the movement's [to end clerical celibacy] chief motivating force has become another mark of the American Church. Apparently, the old Catholic ideals of virginity in youth and chastity in marriage are one more pair of barnacles to be scraped away. Certainly, they are not in fashion, if one judges from the number of priests vowed to celibacy who busy themselves studying sexuality. In 1969, a pastoral letter of the American Bishops extolled "the value and necessity of wisely-planned education of children in human sexuality . . ." Immediately afterward, like a spring released and with a kind of eager gladness, the ladies and gentlemen of the Rosary and Altar Society or the Christian Family Movement began to organize classes in sex education. A decade earlier, the same people had been picketing theaters which showed "indecent" moving pictures or preparing "white lists" of bookstores which stocked only "wholesome" literature. In the sixties, however, they sat in solemn rapture while some psychiatrist with two or three ruined families of his own to his credit reverently unfolded to them the mysteries of the sex mechanism which would make theirs a happier marriage. . . .

And so, the problems of the Universal Church are reflected in the United States, where many Catholics are scandalized by the marriage of priests and nuns. Few of them realize that such unions are at least as old as Martin Luther and Kate von Bora, or that priestly defection and marriage in the American Church goes back to Doctor Wharton of post-Revolutionary days. If they are not new, however, they are certainly more numerous' and there is perhaps a more dangerous novelty in the general flight from the cloister. Since Vatican II so many monks and nuns have exchanged their habits for civilian clothes that the Official Catholic Directory for 1969 listed nine thousand less nuns than the 1968 edition. Meanwhile, such apostolic strongholds of discipline as the Society of Jesus have suffered collapses so spectacular that there are informed Catholics willing to suggest that in another decade there will be no more Jesuits in this country. Other rebellions have erupted among priests and nuns who joined the antiwar demonstrations of the late sixties. Some of them, of course, went rather too far, especially those priests whose pacifist theories induced young men to burn themselves alive in protest, or the ones who invaded federal property to burn draft records or deface them with duck's blood (which at first they had falsely maintained was their own). It is true that because of them the concept of the American Church of instant loyalty has finally been destroyed, and that Catholics are now in the mainstream of the American tradition of dissent. It may also be said of them, like their non-Catholic comrades, that they appear to know very little about war, foreign policy or good manners. Still, the sincerity of their anguish may provided a worthwhile stimulus toward rethinking the Catholic doctrine of the just war, especially with regard to the new era of war introduced by Communism's "national wars of liberation" or the morality of the tactics of guerilla warfare.

Thus, in a state of constant flux and ferment, in a crisis of either growth or decay--only the future will know--an entirely new American Church turns toward the last three decades of the twentieth century. In the beginning, she had been the faith of the discoverers of this continent; and with the Spanish and the French, she had been the Church of the missions to the Indians. Next she became in Maryland a sanctuary for the oppressed Catholics of England, as well as the first faith to grant religious toleration. There followed the post-Revolutionary period of a "quiet" Church with a distinct English base, a brief era of tranquillity which was shattered with the influx of Catholic immigrants form Europe. Thereafter, Catholicism in America was an urban Church of the Immigrant concentrated chiefly in what may be called the northeastern quarter of the country; and also, except for the short-lived ascendancy of priests from France, the spiritual preserve of an Irish hierarchy and priesthood. Now, she is apparently acceptably "American," a mainly suburban and middle-class Church established in all parts of the United States.

In the past, the American Church performed great services for the United States in the areas of education, Americanization of the immigrants, care of the poor and the sick, service in wartime or defense of both democracy and public in the face of Communism and neo-paganism. All this she did while struggling against a deep and active prejudice which probably will persist until Catholicism ceases to be a minority. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, p. 374; pp. 375-376.)


Well, therein lies the rub, so to speak. The very "democracy" that Robert Leckie praises Catholics for defending was built on the quicksand of false, naturalistic, semi-Pelagian, anti-Incarnational and religiously indifferentist principles that was bound to degenerate over the course of time, especially as both Sanctifying and Actual Graces diminished as a result of the introduction of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Catholics in the United States of America were coopted by "democracy" just as the Society of Saint Pius X, which has chosen to "sift" through the decisions of four men they have accepted as popes to determine which ones they will obey (see Just Sign On The Dotted Line P.S. Don't Sweat The Details), has been coopted by the lords of conciliarism ever since Bishop Fellay met with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict in Castelgandolfo on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist. Any degree of acceptance of that which is false will result in the gradual lessening of one's commitment to the truth as one compromise begets others in its wake. Inevitably. Inexorably.

The final paragraph of American and Catholic is quite telling as it demonstrates an almost complete unfamiliarity with the fact that the developments he bemoans had been predicted by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae:

What Catholicism in the United States will have to pay for primacy [Leckie's belief that Catholics might become a majority of the American population] cannot be stated with any hope of accuracy. It may, however, be remembered that Montesquieu once predicted that Protestantism would wither away, after which Catholicism would become Protestant. Bearing this in mind, realizing also how liberal Protestantism's attempt to Christianize secularism resulted in a secularization of Protestantism, it may be suggested that in its new emphasis on the social gospel, in its preoccupation with sex, its dissolving discipline, its abdication of moral authority and its own attempt to accommodate modernity, the American Church has already taken on much of the protective coloration of the environment. It is not thoroughly American, apparently riding the crest of the religious wave of the future, but whether or not it will still be Catholic remains to be seen. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, p. 377.)


This is what Pope Leo XIII had written just seventy-one years prior to the publication of American and Catholic:


But if this [the term Americanism] is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive of and desire a Church in America that is to be different from which it is in the rest of the world. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

The problems that Robert Leckie noted in the final chapter of American and Catholic were not unique to the "American Church." They were manifestations of the universalization of the Americanist ethos in what appeared to be the Catholic Church but was and remains in reality her counterfeit ape, and it is with that counterfeit ape that the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X are considering being "regularized" by for the "good of the Church." The Society of Saint Pius X can no sooner continue condemning the things taught by the conciliar church (false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and State, religious liberty, "natural family planning, "brain death," "interreligious prayer services, etc.) than could the watered down Catholicism taught in the United States from its very beginning have retarded the degradation of a constitutional system based on false premises. It is impossible to "save" that which is false from degradation and collapse. Impossible. And this is say nothing of the impossibility of "reconciled" traditionalist groups to insist on strict standards of modesty of dress and of avoidance of much of what passes for the "popular culture."

Although the final outcome of the meeting yesterday in Albano, Italy, may not be known for several months, the "fix is in." All that remains is for Bishop Fellay to sign on that dotted line, thus completing the Society of Saint Pius X's march into oblivion. The former foes of Americanism will become its enablers by virtue of accepting a "divergence of opinion" on matters of truth, including that concerning the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Today is the Feast of Saint Bridget of Sweden. This wonderful mystic, who wrote so movingly and graphically as to what our sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death, must be invoked in these challenging times as she lived at a time when Holy Mother Church was riven by political (as opposed to doctrinal) disputes that set Catholic against Catholic. Dom Prosper Gueranger described the scene for us in The Liturgical Year:

'Who, O Lord, has treated Thee thus?' 'They that despise Me and forget My love.' This was the first revelation of the Son of God to Bridget of Sweden. Francis of Assisi, raising before he world the standard of the cross, had announced that Christ was about to recommence the dolorous way; not now in His own Person, but in the Church, who is flesh of His flesh. The truth of this declaration Bridget experienced from the very opening that fatal fourteenth century, during which such innumerable disasters, the results of crime, fell at once upon the west.

Born in the year when Sciarra Colonna, a new Pilate's servant, dared to strike the Vicar of Christ, Bridget's childhood was contemporaneous with those sad falls, which caused the Church to be despised by her enemies. There were no saints in Christendom comparable to the great ones of old; in the preceding age the Latin races had exhausted their vitality in producing flowers; but where were the promised fruits? Ancient Europe had nought but affronts for the Word of God; this feast, this apparition of Jesus in cold Scandinavia, seems to point to His flight from the habitual centre of His predilection. Bridget was ten years old, when the Man of sorrows sought a resting-place in her heart: and at that very time, the death of Clement V and the election of John XXII in a foreign land, fixed the papacy in its seventy years' exile.

Rome meanwhile, widowed of her Pontiff, appeared the most miserable of cities: 'The ways of Sion mourn, because there are none that come to the solemn feast.' Sacked by her own sons, she was daily losing some remnant of her ancient glory; her public roads were scenes of bloodshed; solitude reigned amid the ruins of her crumbling basilicas; sheep grazed in St. Peter's and the Lateran. From the seven hills anarchy has spread throughout Italy, transforming the towns into haunts of brigands, and the country parts into deserts. France was doomed to expiate, in the horrors of a hundred years' war, the captivity of the sovereign pontiff.

Unfortunately, the captivity was loved; the court of Avignon did not mourn like the Hebrews by the rivers in Babylon; richer in gold than in virtues, it were well, had they not, for a long time, shaken the influence of Holy See over the nations. The German empire and Louis of Bavaria could easily refuse obedience to the ward of the Valois; the Fratricelli accused the Pope of heresy; while, countenanced by the doctors of the law, Marsillus of Padua attacked the very principle of the papacy. Benedict XII discouraged by the troubles of Italy, abandoned his design of returning to Rome; and built upon the rock of Doms the famous castle, at once fortress and palace, which seemed to fix the residence of the Popes for ever on the banks of the Rhone. The misery of Rome, and the splendour of Avignon, reached their height under Clement VI who entered into a contract with Jane of Naples, Countess of Provence, securing to the Church the definitive possession of Avignon. At that time the papal court surpassed all others in luxury and worldliness. God in His justice visited the nations with the scourge of the black death; while in His mercy He sent warnings from heaven to Pope Clement:

'Arise; make peace between the kings of France and England; and go into Italy to preach the year of salvation, and to visit the places watered by the blood of saints. Consider how, in the past, thou hast provoked My anger, doing thy own will and not thy duty; and I have held My peace. But now my time is at hand. If you wilt not obey, I shall require of thee an account of the unworthiness wherewith thou hast passed through all the degrees by which I permitted thee to be exalted in glory. Thou wilt be answerable for all the avarice and ambition that have been rife in the Church in thy days. Thou couldst have done much towards a reformation, but being carnal-minded thou wouldst not. Repair the pat by zeal during the rest of thy life. Had not My patience preserved thee, thou wouldst have fallen lower than any of thy predecessors. Question thy conscience, and thou wilt see that I speak the truth.'

This severe message, dictated by the Son of God to the prophetess Bridget of Sweden, came from that northern land where sanctity seemed to have taken refuge during the past half century. Though incurring such reproaches, the Pope still had great faith, and he accordingly received with generous courtesy the messengers from the princess of Nericia. But, though he promulgated the celebrated Jubilee of the half-century, Clement VI allowed the holy year to pass away without going himself to prostrate at the tombs of the apostles, to which he convoked the entire world. The patience of God was at an end. The judgment of that soul was revealed to Bridget; she saw its terrible chastisement, which however was not eternal, and was tempered by hope.

Hitherto wholly engaged with the supernatural interests of her own country, Bridget suddenly found her mission embrace the whole world. In vain, by her prayers of God, by her warnings to princes, had the saint striven to avert from Sweden the trials that were to end in the union of Calmar. Neither Magnus II nor his consort Blanche of Dampierre, took to heart the menaces of their noble relative; 'I saw the sun and the moon shining together in the heavens, until both having given their power to the dragon, the sky grew pale, reptiles filled the earth, the sun sunk into the abyss, and the moon disappeared, leaving no trace behind.

The criminal coldness of the south had been the occasion of grace for the north; but the latter in tis turn did not profit by the time of its visitation: and Bridget quitted it forever. She herself was a cit of refuge to our Lord. Taking up her abode in Rome, she there, by her holiness, prepared the way for the return of Christ's vicar. There for twenty years she, as it were, personified the eternal city, enduring all its bitter sufferings, knowing all its moral miseries, presenting its tears and prayers to our Lord; continually visiting the tombs of the apostles and martyrs throughout the peninsula; and at the same time never ceasing to transmit to Pontiffs and kings the messages dictated to her by God.

At length the horizon appeared to be brightening; while the just and inflexible Innocent VI reformed the papal court, Albornoz was restoring peace in Italy. In 1367 Bridget had the great joy of receiving in the Vatican the blessing of Urban V. Unhappily, in three short years Urban quitted the threshold of the apostles to return to his native land; but, as Bridget had foretold, he re-entered Avignon only to die. He was succeeded by the nephew of Clement VI, Roger de Beaufort, under the name of Gregory XI, who was destined to put an end to the exile and break the chains of the Roman Pontiffs.

But Bridget's hour had come. Another was to reap in joy what she had sown in tears; Catharine of Siena was to bring back to the holy city the vicar of our Lord. As to the valiant Scandinavian, who had never lost courage or faltered in faith through the failure of her missions, she was inspired by her divine Spouse to visit the holy places, the scenes of His Passion. It was on her return from this last pilgrimage, that, far from her native land, in that desolate Rome whose widowhood she had striven in vain to terminate, she was called to her heavenly reward. Her body was carried back to Scandinavia by her daughter St. Catharine of Sweden. It was laid in the yet unfinished monastery of Vadstena, mother-house of that projected Order of our Saviour, the foundations of which, like all the undertakings imposed by God upon Bridget, was not to be completed until after her death. Twenty-five years before, she had received almost simultaneously the command to found, and the command to quit, this holy retreat, as thought he Lord would give her a glimpse of its blessed peace, only to crucify her the more in the very different path into which He immediately led her. Such is God's severity towards His dear ones and such His sovereign independence with regard to His gifts. In the same manner, He had allowed the saint, in her early years, to be attracted to the beautiful lily of virginity, and then signified His will that the flower should not be hers. 'When I cry,' said the prophet, in a captivity figurative of that whereof Bridget felt all the bitterness, 'when I cry and entreat, He hath shut out m prayer. He hath shut up my ways with square stones, He hath turned my paths upside down.'

Before reading the liturgical legend, let us call to mind that St. Bridget died on July 23, 1373; October 8 is the anniversary of the first Mass celebrated in her honour by Pope Boniface IX on the day following her canonization [October 7 and 8, 1391]. Martin V confirmed the Acts of Boniface IX in her honour; and approved her Revelations, which had been violently attacked in the Councils of Constance and Basle, only to come forth with a higher recommendations to the piety of the faithful. Man indulgences are attached to the rosary which bears the saint's name. These are now, by the favour of the apostolic See, frequently applied to ordinary rosaries; but it must be remember that the true rosary of St. Bridget is composed of the Ave Maria recited sixty-three times, the Pater noster seven times and the Credo seven times, in honour of the supposed number of our Lady's years on earth, and of her joys and sorrows. It was also from a desire of honouring our Lady, that the saint vested in the abbess the superiority over the double monasteries in the Order of our Saviour. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost: Book V, pp. 360-365.)


We need to invoke the heavenly intercession of Saint Bridget at a time when the papacy itself is in chains, when imposters who deny even the very nature of revealed truth and who break the First and Second Commandments regularly take full advantage of those thinking that some "strategic silence" about their apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges will "save the day" for the Church. As noted before, one compromise begets others, something that must result in total corruption over the course of time.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted these difficult times to His Most Blessed Mother, to whom Saint Bridget was so tenderly devoted, and her Fatima Message, the essence of which for us as members of the laity is to be devoted to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and to pray her Most Holy Rosary faithfully and meditatively every day without fail.

Yes, the errors of Modernity that was seen but little understood by Robert Leckie are related to the errors of Modernism that have ensnared traditionalists in the past and are doing so once again. These are the errors of Russia. And the only antidote is Our Lady's Fatima Message, which will be fulfilled when the chains that bind the See of Peter are broken miraculously and there is the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Do not despair. We are in Our Lady's loving hands as she seeks to lead us to the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Christ the King.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


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