Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 February 24, 2010

Rotten to the Very Roots

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The tree of conciliarism is rotten  from its very top to its very roots.

Apart from the many examples I have provided on this website in the past four years since coming (yes, at long last!) to recognize that those who defect from the Catholic Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office in Holy Mother Church legitimately, I have stressed the simple fact that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI holds to a view concerning the nature of dogmatic truth that has is philosophically absurd and has been condemned solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church on many occasions (see Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism). Ratzinger/Benedict's warfare upon the nature of dogmatic truth is, in reality, an attack upon the very nature of God Himself. Possessing a false understanding of the very nature of the Most Blessed Trinity makes it easy for Ratzinger/Benedict to violate the First and Second Commandments as he esteems the symbols and "values" and places of worship of one false religion after another, each of which is hated by God.

The rot of conciliarism starts at the top. Admitting that each person must come to see this for himself and that I was so slow to see it clearly and to accept the consequences of this fact, it is a very late hour for "conservative" and traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to keep swatting away at minions in the conciliar Vatican and in conciliar chancery offices as those minions are only doing the bidding of the false "pope" himself. It is "Pope" Benedict XVI who appoints these minions. It is "Pope" Benedict XVI who doesn't correct these minions. It is "Pope" Benedict XVI who thinks nothing of keeping his own mouth silent as one of his own "archbishops," Robert Zollitsch of the Archdiocese of Freiburg in Breisgau, Germany, and the president of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in Germany, denies that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross.

A "pope" who can keep silent about such a blasphemous apostasy--and who commits blasphemous apostasies of his own on a regular basis (see Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment and Saint Peter and Anti-Peter--is going to have no problem whasoever retaining "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella as the "President" of the "Pontifical" Academy for Life one year after Fisichella wrote an article in L'Osservatore Romano, the semi-official newspaper of the Vatican, criticizing the conciliar "archbishop" in Recife, Brazil, "Archbishop" Cardoso Sobrinho, for excommunicating doctors who performed an abortion on a nine year-old girl who was carrying twins as a result of an act of violence against her by a relative, stating that the abortions were necessary to "save" the life of the nine year-old girl, a contention that is both medically untrue and morally false: it is never "necessary" to directly, intentionally kill one human being to save the life of another. (See So Long to the Fifth Commandment). To believe, as do five members of the "Pontifical" Academy for Life who have issued a Statement that was a not-so-implicit call for "Archbishop" Fisichella's removal as the academy's president, that Ratzinger/Benedict is going to remove Fisichella for his open embrace of what he called "therapeutic abortion" is tragic. It is Ratzinger/Benedict alone who is responsible for men such as Rino Fisichella being in power. It is Ratzinger/Benedict who is the problem, not minions such as Rino Fisichella.

"Archbishop" Fisichella, aided and abetted by "papal" flack "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., has said that he is going nowhere, expressing "outrage" that anyone could criticize him for what he wrote last year, especially in light of a "clarification" about his article that was issued by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

ROME, February 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), has told the Associated Press that he has no intention of stepping down after five senior members of the Academy issued a statement last week expressing their loss of confidence in his leadership.

“I won’t respond to these people. Too much space already has been given to them,” Fisichella told AP.

Fisichella’s response follows comments late last week from Fr. Frederico Lombardi, the head of the Holy See Press Office and a subordinate of the cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who told media that the statement has not been received by either the pope or Bertone. Lombardi, who has gone on record supporting Fisichella, told the Catholic News Agency that issuing the statement to the press was an “astonishing” move.

The author of the statement, Luke Gormally, an Ordinary Member of the Academy and the former director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London, told LSN that he did not intend to pursue the matter any further.

Gormally told LSN, “Certainly, for the immediate future I have no further action in mind.”

The five signatories to the statement say they believe that Archbishop Fisichella’s speech at the Academy’s plenary meeting made it clear that he does not grasp the meaning of the Catholic Church’s absolute prohibition on the killing of unborn children.

His speech, they said, “had the effect of confirming in the minds of many academicians the impression that we are being led by an ecclesiastic who does not understand what absolute respect for innocent human lives entails.” They called this an “absurd” situation.

Fisichella, they said, maintained that the article he wrote last year, which appeared to condone the abortion of the twin children of a nine-year-old rape victim in Brazil, had been “vindicated” by a clarification issued in July 2009 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Fisichella wrote in his article, published in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that the doctors who aborted the twins did not deserve excommunication and accused the pro-life local bishop of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of acting hastily and failing to meet the pastoral needs of the girl.

“There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust,” he wrote

These assertions were roundly refuted at the time by a statement from the Brazilian diocese detailing the assistance that the girl and her family had been receiving from the local priest and the diocese before she was spirited away by a pro-abortion group for the abortion. This response was never given space in either the secular press or in L’Osservatore Romano and no official response to it was ever publicly made by any office of the Vatican, although Bishop Cardoso was later honoured for his actions by the pro-life group Human Life International.

Gormally told LSN today that his statement had originally been meant only as his own response to LSN’s request for information on the outcome of the PAV plenary meeting, but that later other members expressed an interest in signing. The group later released it to other news outlets.

He said he is “content” with the situation as it is and said that the statement has achieved what it set out to do by clarifying for the public what he believes the true situation is with the Academy. The statement said that within the Vatican Curia, it is “widely perceived” that Fisichella is an “inappropriate” president of the Academy.

Gormally told AP that an article by Catholic News Service, in which Fisichella had declared that there was “harmony” at the PAV plenary meeting, had been a work of deliberate “disinformation.” The statement, he said, had corrected this situation.

On Friday, February 19, Vatican Spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi said the statement by the five PAV members “was received neither by the Holy Father, nor by the cardinal Secretary of State, who would seem to be the natural recipients,” nor, he said, had it been presented at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, “which would have been the natural place to address the matter.”

“It’s a bit strange that persons who are members of an academy address a request of this kind without addressing it to the competent authorities. It’s astounding and seems incorrect that such a document should be given public circulation,” Lombardi said.

However, Fr. Lombardi himself has had a hand in the growth of the controversy surrounding the PAV and Archbishop Fisichella’s article.

On March 21 2009, just days after Fisichella’s article was published, Fr. Lombardi, while accompanying the pope on a visit to Africa, told media that in his speech to Angolan dignitaries Benedict XVI had in no way intended to condemn “therapeutic abortion.” In his speech, Pope Benedict had observed, “How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare!”

Lombardi, aware of the growing scandal surrounding Fisichella’s statements, hastened to assure journalists that the comments had nothing to do with the Brazilian case, and openly endorsed Fisichella’s assertions.

He said, “In this regard the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply, when he lamented in L’Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something quite different … The Pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected.”

Fr. Lombardi later declined LSN’s direct request for a clarification of his remarks. (Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics)


Those who reject Scholasticism wind up contradicting themselves in mid-sentence sometimes. Those who reject Scholasticism wind up steeped in a sappy sentimentality that passes itself off as authentic Catholic moral theology. Those who are steeped in the lies of the New Theology, which is premised upon a rejection of Scholasticism, wind up asserting untruths as being perfectly compatible with the truth as they believe, as do all Hegelians, that truth contains within itself the seeds of its own contradiction.

This leads conciliar officials to issue "clarification" after "clarification" when they are caught red-handed contradicting defined matters of Faith and Morals. That anyone, including the bright lights in the conciliar Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith who have given us several "clarifications" in recent years (whether conciliar 'bishops" should deny what purports to be Holy Communion to pro-abort Catholics in public life; on the meaning of the word "subsist" in Lumen Gentium), can find a way to clarify the phrase "therapeutic abortion" in the case of the nine-year old Brazilian girl when the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law proscribe every direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life is indeed absurd. It is also par for the course in the absurd world of conciliarism that is headed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose Modernist mind lives in the absurdities of his New Theology.

Consider, for example, some of the attempts of conciliar officials to "clarify" their previous statements and documents:

1. The then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger issued a "clarification" of the meaning of Dominus Jesus shortly after it was released on August 6, 2000:

Cardinal Ratzinger himself began backpedaling almost immediately at the September 5 [2000] press conference itself. According to the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire, when asked whether DI [Dominus Iesus] taught that the Jews could not be saved without faith in Christ, Ratzinger offered the following non-answer: "Every Catholic theologian recognizes the salvific role of that people." Granted that "salvation is of the Jews," as our Lord taught us (John 4:22), but as He says immediately afterward: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth"--that is, the Messiah has arrived and shall be adored by those who worship truly. Having rejected the Messiah, however, what "salvific role" does modern Israel play today? When pressed on whether an individual Jew could be saved without recognizing Christ, the Cardinal replied that "it is not necessary that he recognize Christ the savior, and it is not given to us to explore how salvation, the gift of God, can come even for him." Ratzinger went on to say that "Christ is a reality that changes history, even for those who do not recognize him." Are we to take from this that Christ saves the Jews whether they recognize him or not, simply because His existence "changes history"?

However, it appears that at the same press conference Ratzinger gave a more nuanced answer, apparently in response to another questioner:

[We]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it. However...Christian history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ. This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience.

Now, which is it--that a Jew need not recognize Christ in order to be saved, or that a Jew need not recognize Christ if there is an "insurmountable impediment"? Note also that Cardinal Ratzinger here repeats the suggestion that the mere presence of Christ in history "affects" Jews who reject him. What does this mean? One thing all these remarks mean is a diminution of the impact of DI's teaching that Christ is the sole mediator of the only way of salvation for all men--a teaching DI itself nuances nearly to the point of irrelevance.

Since the publication of DI was supposed to be the occasion for clarifying confusion about Christ and salvation, why not end a long period of postconciliar confusion by stating forthrightly what the Church always taught before the Council: "Yes, objectively speaking, a Jew must come to Christ and be baptized in order to be saved, just like everyone else in the human race; for Christ is God and He commissioned His Church to make disciples of all nations. This is what the Catholic Church has always taught and always will teach." Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately focused on "insurmountable impediments." And what is an "insurmountable impediment" in the first place? Is this notion something even broader than the ever-expanding category of "invincible ignorance"? Cardinal Ratzinger gave no indications. However, if one of Rabbi Toaff's own predecessors as chief rabbi of Rome, Rabbi Israel Zolli, was able to follow God's grace into the Roman Catholic Church immediately after World War II, then why not Rabbi Toaff himself or any other Jew alive today--especially after thirty-five years of "Jewish-Christian" dialogue," which was supposed to engender greater understanding of the Church on the part of Jews?

Or is the mere fact of being a Jew, immersed in Jewish religion and culture, and facing ostracism if one converts, now to be considered an "insurmountable impediment" to conversion? If so, then no Jew from St. Paul to the present day has ever been subjectively obliged to join the Church; nor has anyone else in religious, emotional or cultural circumstances that would make conversion difficult. But this would mean that the only people obliged to become Catholics are those who would not find conversion unduly burdensome. Everyone else has an "insurmountable impediment." That is the very thesis being promoted by some of the more liberal exponents of "invincible ignorance," who speak of "unconscious psychological blocks" and other elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses for not becoming a Catholic that have proliferated since Vatican II. There is very little place for the power of God's grace in this kind of semi-Pelagian thinking. We are not here contending that Cardinal Ratzinger himself actually teaches anything like this, but in view of the veiled nature of his remarks it is difficult to know what he is teaching. A clarification of DI's "clarifications" is already urgently needed. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 369-372.)


2. The conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church on June 29, 2007, to "clarify" points made in the "Second" Vatican Council's Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Orientalium Ecclesiarum (and two "papal" encyclical letter) about the nature of the Catholic Church. The "clarification" was simply a reiteration of the points made in the cited documents it was attempting to clarify. Got it?

3. The conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document, A Doctrine Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization, on December 14, 2007, to "clarify" the conciliar church's view of evangelization.

4. A "clarification" was issued by the conciliar Vatican's Secretariat of State office in 2008 following the release of the text of Ratzinger/Benedict's revised Good Friday prayer for the Jews.

5. The conciliar Vatican's Secretariat of State office issued a "clarification" of the "remission" of the "excommunication" of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, Note from the Secretary of State concerning the four Prelates of the Society of Saint Pius X, February 4, 2009.)

6. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself issued a letter to the world's conciliar "bishops" to explain his reasons of lifting the "excommunications" against the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOPS. (See also: Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun.)

7. The conciliar Vatican last year issued a "clarification" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China in a Compendium to make Ratzinger/Benedict's Letter more "comprehensible." (See Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology).

8. Endless have been the documents seeking to "clarify" or "correct" provisions found in the General Instruction to Roman Missal that are supposed to govern the offerings of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Among these documents have been: Inter Oecumenici, Ecclesiae Semper, Eucharisticum Mysterium, Memoriale Domini. Actio Pastoralis Ecclesiae, Cenam Paschalem, Liturgiae Instataurartiones, Congerentiarum Episcopalium, Dominicae Cenae, Inaestimabile Donum, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Sacramentum Caritatis, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Liturgiam Authenticam. And conciliar officials are still grappling with how to "right" the abomination known as the Novus Ordo!


Get the idea? And this is only a very, very partial listing of the "clarifications" issued by authorities in the conciliar Vatican in the past few years.

Few things are clear in conciliarism except that few things are clear. And the fact that few things are clear should make it clear to you and to me and to everyone else that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church as the Mystical Bride of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ brings her teaching to her children with ease and security, something that Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith


It should come as absolutely no surprise or shock that someone like "Archbishop" Rino Fisichella, a man who, despite the "clarification" about his defection from Fifth Commandment last year that was issued by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, does indeed believe that there are instances when an innocent preborn baby may be the first object of a direct, intentional attack upon his very life, has the trust and confidence of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. All of the well-meaning statements of concern made by prominent "pro-life" Catholics (isn't it sad that one has to use the adjective "pro-life" to describe a Catholic, no less one who is said to be a "bishop"?) about Rino Fisichella and his erroneous moral theology and his sanctimony in the face of criticism (hmmm, sound familiar?) and his dissembling about the facts of the recent meeting of the members of the "Pontifical" Academy for Life miss the point entirely: the problem is with Ratzinger/Benedict himself and his false religion, conciliarism, not with minions such as Fisichella and Federico Lombardi, who are simply mirror images of the false "pontiff" himself." (See an article on this matter, Wild Card or Mirror Image?.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a man who is steeped in one Modernist error after another, is very sanguine about errors propagated by others, including his subordinates (such as Robert Zollitsch and Rino Fisichella), even believes that "theologians" who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "continue believing in a Christian manner:"

Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:

In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.


So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."

Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:

I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.


According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.

Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:

All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).


We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger)


When will sincere, hard-working, well-meaning "pro-life" Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism come to realize that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI who makes terms with theological error and who blasphemes God and dishonors the honor, majesty and glory that are His due is an enemy of the Holy Faith and thus an enemy of the restoration of full legal protection to innocent human life without any exception, reservation or qualification whatsoever? No one who publicly rejects the Social Reign of Christ King by embracing the falsehoods of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" can do anything but further institutionalize the grip that the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity have on men and their nations today.


The Catholic Church does indeed make her teaching known with ease and security to the knowledge of men. The absolute prohibition against the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life contained in the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment have been taught clearly by the Catholic Church from time immemorial. And it is to this Fifth Commandment that two lords of the conciliar Vatican have, in effect, said "so long" to as they have made it appear that there are some instances in which it is "necessary" and morally licit to kill innocent babies in their mothers' wombs.

Obviously, those who offend God by means of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and by means of esteeming the symbols and beliefs of false religions and who kill souls with the various doctrinal corruptions of conciliarism (and who undermine the innocent and purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) can come to justify even direct attacks on innocent human life. Those who can kill the soul can just as easily kill the body, can they not?

In the midst of this "operation of error" that abounds in the midst of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (could anyone imagine the necessity of the bishops under Pope Saint Pius X arguing with him on the prohibition against the taking of innocent human life in the womb in any circumstance at any time?), we need to ask Our Lady to help us remain with our true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism. Any shepherd who does not warn his faithful to stay completely and totally away from the conciliar wolves is exposing them to the deceits of the devil represented by likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his henchmen, among whom are Rino Fisichella and Federico Lombardi.

The tree of conciliarism is indeed rotten from its very top to its very poisonous roots

Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end. May we persevere in this season of penance, Lent, in our praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit so that we, unworthy though we may be, might be able to plant a few seeds for the day when Catholics can say "so long" to the conciliar revolutionaries and their perverse liturgies and their corrupt doctrinal and their false moral teachings and "hello" to true popes and true bishops who are defenders of the entirety of the Catholic Faith, including the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Alleluia! He is Risen!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

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, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Matthias, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.