Beatifying Their Own

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, that there is nothing about the Catholic Faith that Modernists do not want to reform and revise according to their own twisted "lights." He summarizes the Modernist as a reformer in paragraphs thirty-eight and thirty-nine of Pascendi:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies.

 

One of the areas that the Modernists, now firmly ensconced in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that presents itself to the world as the "Catholic" Church, have been seeking to use in recent decades to promote their own nefarious agenda is the canonization process. Once the preserve of restraint and sobriety prior to the advent of conciliarism, the canonization process has become a veritable "saint-making factory" to realize in many instances certain ideological goals of the conciliar revolutionaries.

A careful distinction needs to be made before proceeding: there have been truly worthy candidates for beatification and canonization who have been advanced by the conciliarists. The "wheat" of authentic sanctity (such as belonged to Jacinta and Francisco Marto, Father Junipero Serra, Father Miguel Augustin Pro, Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich, Venerable Pauline Jaricot, Kateri Tekakwitha, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Bishop John Neumann, Venerable Juan Diego, Padre Pio, Father Maximilian Kolbe, who opposed all forms of naturalism, including both "national" socialism and "international" socialism) will have to be separated from the "chaff" of Modernism (Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, Mother Teresa, Karol Wojtyla, Angelo Roncalli, et al.) by a true pope when the conciliarists are removed by the very hand of God Himself as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The inclusion of truly worthy candidates to be considered  for canonization has permitted the conciliarists to attempt to promote their own number (Escriva, Roncalli, Wojtyla) to the ranks of the blessed.

In other words, you see, the inclusion of worthy candidates in the "saint factory" of conciliarism has provided a "cover," if you will, for the inclusion of the progenitors of the conciliar agenda in the canonization process. Although an indulterer at the time, even I knew that the "beatification" of Pope Pius IX and the decrepit Modernist named Angelo Roncalli, who had his corpulent corpus preserved artificially so as to make it appear that it was "incorrupt" to those investigating his "cause" after his death, on the same day, September 3, 2000, was an exercise in Hegelianism. After all, how can one "reconcile" heralding Pope Pius IX and Angelo Roncalli on the same day when the former, Pope Pius IX, condemned the very propositions that were at the foundation of the life's work of the latter, Roncalli?

Obviously, attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable is of the essence of the conciliarist mind, which believes that truth can contradict itself and that we must see, as Joseph Ratzinger noted in his famous address to the "curia" of December 22, 2005, "continuity in discontinuity." Remember, it was Ratzinger himself who said that the text of the Second Vatican Council represents a "correction" of past papal pronouncements and even the decrees of dogmatic councils. He noted this in Principles of Catholic Theology and in his July 2, 1990, interview with L'Osservatore Romano prior to "ratifying" this Hegelian view of truth as "pope" in the December 22, 2005, curia address. Here are excerpts from each of these three explicit examples of the conciliar view of the ever-changing nature of truth, which is said to be grasped imperfectly by the mind at any given time and thus needs to be "clarified" at future points according to new "insights" that come to light:

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

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

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

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Address to Curia, December 22, 2005.)

 

There is, one can see, a perfect continuity in the thought of Joseph Ratzinger over the years. His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn, the Rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, summarized the essence of Ratzinger's December 22, 2005, address to the conciliar curia as follows:

Ratzinger in a single stroke relativizes every decision which the Church ever made. It makes no doctrinal decision of the past, no condemnation of any error, a permanent decision, but one which can and must change as historical circumstances change. This one statement gives the Modernists a license to alter any declaration of the Church in the past. It subjects the teaching of the Church to a perpetual evolution.

Ratzinger used this historicism in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans in order to cast off the decisions of the Council of Trent, relegating the solemn condemnations to mere "salutary warnings." The same thing was done in the case of the doctrines of Antonio Rosmini, which were condemned by Leo XIII. In their historical context, they say, it was right to condemn these. But now we understand better, and we can lift the condemnations. (His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn, Saving the Baby)

 

The entirety of Joseph Ratzinger's belief in the evolution of dogma was condemned in this one single passage from Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis:

We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas .

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

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts." On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."

 

The Oath Against Modernism mandated by Pope Saint Pius X, which Ratzinger himself had to take before his ordination to the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood (which priestly ordination took place on June 29, 1951), reaffirmed the condemnations contained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis:

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

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

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

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

 

Ratzinger and his fellow conciliarists believe that they can dismiss such solemn oaths and past papal encyclical letters and dogmatic pronouncements with ready abandon, finding their Hegelian sense of "continuity in discontinuity." However, it is also necessary for the conciliarists to "canonize" this revolution against the Catholic Faith by seeking to "beatify" and "canonize" their "own" for the "people" to venerate and invoke. This is really nothing new. Even secular revolutionaries "canonize" their own. Vladimir Lenin's artificially preserved body has been on display in Moscow since his death in 1921, having to undergo daily embalming treatments to preserve its "incorrupt" character. Similar efforts have been made to preserve the bodies of Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung. Indeed, it is quite an irony that Angelo Roncalli personally authorized the efforts to make it appear as though his body would be incorrupt after death, placing him in a league with the Soviet revolutionaries whose machinations he agreed not have criticized at the "Second" Vatican Council in exchange for the presence of "observers" from the heretical nd schismatic Russian Orthodox Church. The "saint making factory" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is, therefore, working overtime to make sure that its heralds are honored in the "liturgy" that their revolutionary efforts helped to bring to fruition.

Among 320 persons whose "beatifications" were approved on June 3, 2007, by Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was one Father Antonio Rosmini. The news of this was tucked away at the end of a Zenit report on June 3, 2007. No mention was made in the conciliarist version of Pravda (or Izvestia, take your pick) of the fact that forty of Rosmini's pantheistic propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 or that Rosmini was "rehabilitated" by Joseph Ratzinger, the man who believes that almost nothing in the past binds those who live in different circumstances and come to different conclusions, the precise error that Pope Saint Pius X condemned with such vigor in Pascendi Dominci Gregis.

The case of the "beatification" of Antonio Rosmini is just as much a slap in the face to Pope Leo XIII as the placement of a "mural" (or whatever form of art it is) of Angelo Roncalli in full papal regalia looking down upon the altar of Pope Saint Pius X in the Basilica of Saint Peter is to the great foe of the Modernism so favored by Roncalli. The case of the "beatification" of Antonio Rosmini is just as much a slap in the face to the Scholastic Philosophy that is held in such contempt by Ratzinger and his fellow Modernists as the removal of the authentically incorrupt body of Saint Josaphat from Saint Peter's (and its replacement with the artificially preserved body of Roncalli) is the to efforts of the great Seventeenth Century Archbishop of Krakow to seek the conversion of the heretical and schismatic Orthodox to the true Faith. The case of the "beatification" or Antonio Rosmini is yet another statement on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries that theirs is the path of a true "synthesis of the Faith" and that their "protagonists" are no less holy than those who opposed them. It does take, after all, succeeding generations to discover how something condemned in the past can be seen as true in the future.

There has been much analysis of the "rehabilitation" of Antonio Rosmini by Joseph Ratzinger himself. Even a most radical theologian, a true child of conciliarism and of all its ecumenical foundations named Gregory Baum, noted in National Catholic Reporter on January 25, 2002, that Joseph Ratzinger had raised a significant question concerning the stability of Magisterial pronouncements:

Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini's ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.

The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzinger's "attentive reading" demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in an internal contradiction? I do not think so.

He has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini's propositions in 1887 were justified in terms of the church's pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to become the church's official philosophy.

The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886 exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true. Ratzinger's explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office at that time saw itself as a servant of the church's central government and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their truth.

Still, the nota is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?

Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: "We declare, we set forth, we define that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any human creature." And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442 that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to every human being.

We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic, "we declare, we set forth, we define," that the reader may wonder whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries who believed that God's redemptive Word, incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet -- I would argue -- these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.

Ratzinger's document has sent theologians off into a new area of research. (Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now)

 

Left unaddressed by Baum's analysis is the simple fact that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself. Alas, those impressed with Georg Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin and Hans Urs von Balthasar believe, at least minimally, that the "Spirit" can contradict Himself as men grasp to understand "Him" better over time. Pure Modernism, of course.

Baum's "analysis," although supportive of conciliarism, is nevertheless interesting because it does raise the issue of contradiction. Yes, those of us who have come to realize that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and that its "magisterium" has no authority to contradict anything taught by the Catholic Church realize that the "overturning" of Pope Leo XIII's 1887 condemnation of forty of Antonio Rosmini's propositions by Joseph Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 1, 2001, has no binding force whatsoever. It is always useful, however, when true conciliar revolutionaries such as Gregory Baum point out the plain truth that "contradiction" can be part of the Faith, an important component element of the Modernist mind.

More to the point concerning the substance of Rosmini's condemned work is an analysis done by Mr. James Larson and published in Christian Order in 2004. Mind you, Mr. Larson is adamantly opposed to sedevacantism and looks disapprovingly, I am told, upon the use of his work by those of us who have come to recognize that the Catholic Church cannot be the author of the novelties and errors of the past forty years. His work, however, is very well done and defends basic Catholic truths that have been under attack by the conciliarists. A brief review of Mr. Larson's analysis of the Rosmini condemnation and Ratzinger's "reversal" of it is thus appropriate to cite once again in light of Rosmini's pending "beatification:"

On 1 July, 2001, the CDF issued a NOTE on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr. Antonio Rosmini Serbati. The Note was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and confirmed by Pope John Paul II. Its decision reads as follows:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, following an in-depth examination of the two doctrinal Decrees, promulgated in the 19th century, and taking into account the results emerging from historiography and from the scientific and theoretical research of the last ten years has reached the following conclusion: The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum [issued by the Holy Office and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII on 14 Dec, 1887] with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" taken from the works of Anthony Rosmini can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works."

We shall be quoting further from this document, but let us now turn to some of the condemned propositions (they are to be found in Denzinger 1891ff.). Please keep in mind that, despite the impression which may be give by the last sentence in the above quote, all of the following are taken from Rosmini’s works. They are his words, and not conclusions which someone else has drawn from reading these works. We will begin with some of those which deal with the relationship between God and His creation: between Infinite Being and finite being. Again, I ask for perseverance. Heterodox philosophers are not known for the clarity of their propositions. I can assure the reader, however, that after a short period of suffering and possible vertigo, clarity shall return:

#4 "Indeterminate being, which without doubt is known to all intelligences, is that divine thing which is manifest to man in nature."

#6 "In the being which prescinds from creatures and from God, which is indeterminate being, and in God, not indeterminate but absolute being, the essence is the same."

#12 "There is no finite reality, but God causes it to exist by adding limitation to infinite reality. – Initial being becomes the essence of every real being. – Being which actuates finite natures, and is joined with them, is cut off by God."

#18 "The love by which God loves Himself even in creatures, and which is the reason why He determines Himself to create, constitutes a moral necessity…."

#19 "The Word is that unseen material, from which, as it is said in wisdom 11:18, all things of the universe were created."

Despite some characteristic "fuzziness" and convoluted phrasing, there is no doubt that we are here dealing with clear statements of pantheism. There is simply no way that anyone can say that finite reality comes to exist through a limiting of infinite reality, and that the essence of the being which is in God and the being which is in creatures are the same, without this constituting pantheism.

Nor is there any way that one can say that the love which "determines" God to create constitutes a moral necessity, without violating the non-dependence of God or the absolute gratuitousness of His relationship to creatures. Finally, it is impossible that these statements, considering their objective content, could be placed in any larger "system" or context which would clear them of their heretical content.

Rosmini’s Erroneous System

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia renders a very good explanation of the Rosminian system of ontology (the philosophical study of the nature of being). Rosmini postulates three types of being: Absolute, ideal, and real. Absolute Being is identical with God’s Nature and outside of man’s immediate experience. The other two types of being are within man’s experience, and are named ideal being and real being.

Ideal being is universal, simple, immutable, eternal, and indeterminate. Real being is determinate, contingent, temporal, and almost infinitely manifold and varied. Real being is, in fact, what we experience in all the varied, individual things of our world. What makes the Rosmini system fuzzy and difficult to understand is his concept of "ideal being." The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

"Ideal being [in the Rosmini system] is not God, but we may call it, says Rosmini, an appurtenance of God, and even Divine, for its characteristics are not those of created finite things, and its ultimate source must be in God."

All creation, according to Rosmini, is therefore a creation "out of" God (or "from the Word" as proposition #19 above would have it). It is a "limiting" of that unlimited "ideal being" (also called "initial" being) which is "in" God. This is pure pantheism, and a clear denial of creation ex nihilo.

On the other side of the Rosmini coin, all our perceptions of real things involve a direct knowledge and contact with "ideal being" which is an "appurtenance" of God, is in God, and therefore may be called Divine. This constitutes the heresy of "ontologism", the belief that human intelligence has a direct intuitive knowledge of God or "the Divine" in its knowledge of created things.

Further Heresies

Rosmini’s errors were certainly not limited to ontology or cosmoslogy. The following constitutes a Trinitarian and Christological heresy:

#26 (in part): "The Word, insofar as it is the loved object, and insofar as it is the Word, that is the object subsisting in itself, known by itself, is the person of the Holy Spirit."

It is difficult for us to imagine a seminary-trained priest of the 19th century proclaiming that Christ is the Holy Spirit. To do so is simply to deny the real distinctions between the Three Divine Persons which is integral to belief in the Trinity.

Another Christological heresy:

#27: "In the humanity of Christ the human will was so taken up by the Holy Spirit in order to cling to objective Being, that is to the Word, that it (the will) gave over the rule of man wholly to Him, and assumed the Word personally, thus uniting with itself human nature. Hence, the human will ceased to be personal in man, and, although person is in other men, it remained nature in Christ."

This would appear to be simply a repetition of the Monothelite heresy of the seventh century, which taught that the union of the Divine and human natures in the one Divine Person of Christ only involved the possession and activity of one will – the Divine. Under such an erroneous "Christology" the obedience of Christ to the Cross would have meant nothing – His human nature being only an "un-willing" victim of the Divine Will.

We conclude with his Eucharistic heresies:

#1919: "We think that the following conjecture is by no means at variance with Catholic doctrine, which alone is truth: In the Eucharistic sacrament the substance of bread and wine becomes the true flesh and true blood of Christ, when Christ makes it the terminus of His sentient principle, and vivifies it with His life; almost in that way by which bread and wine truly are transubstantiated into our flesh and blood, because they become the terminus of our sentient principle."

#1921: "In the sacrament of the Eucharist by the power of words the body and blood of Christ are present only in that measure which corresponds (a quell tanto) to the substance of the bread and wine, which are transubstantiated; the rest of the body of Christ is there through concomitance."

We should note, before going on, that Rosmini uses the word "transubstantiated" in a manner that does not correspond with Catholic doctrine. In no way is he speaking of that conversion of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which conversion the Council of Trent defines as Transubstantiation. His use of the word is therefore a matter of blatant intellectual deception. . . .

There is absolutely no question that the propositions which we have examined (and others as well) are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. What, therefore, can it possibly mean when the CDF Note makes the following statement?

"The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions"…can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works."

All the propositions condemned are admittedly taken from Rosmini’s own statements and works. We have the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia that these teachings are indeed part of the "Rosmini system". Further, there exists a publishing group called Rosmini House in Durham, UK, dedicated to the publishing of Rosmini’s teachings. A study of these teachings to be found on their website [www.rosmini-in-english.org] certainly confirms that they are an integral part of his system of thought.

We have every right, therefore, to question the validity of the CDF statement that the obvious meanings of many of these propositions do not belong to "the position of Rosmini."

The most astounding thing about the CDF document is that immediately after making the above statement, we then read the following assertion:

"At the same time the objective validity of the Decree Post obitum referring to the previously condemned propositions, remains for whoever reads them, outside of the Rosminian system, in an idealist, ontologist point of view and with a meaning contrary to Catholic faith and doctrine."

In other words (according to the reasoning of the CDF document): What Rosmini said, he did not really say. But what Rosmini said that he did not really say is condemned outside of what he really said if interpreted in the obvious sense which he obviously meant but which is not really a part of what he said.

All of this would seem to be Orwellian Newspeak at its worst. When confronted with such apparent confusion and violations of simple intelligence we must certainly seek the deeper reasons, which I believe are profoundly disturbing.

Heart of the Matter

In past issues of CO I have dealt with the reality and concept of being, and the war that is being conducted against it. In Thomistic ontology, the flaming swords which guard the gate to being, and therefore to all reality, are the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of the Excluded Middle. These are the logical principles inscribed in our hearts and minds by God which are the foundations of all our perception of reality. These principles simply say that a thing either is or it is not, that a thing cannot both be and not be, and that we do not have a third alternative – something, as it were, in the middle between being and non-being. To dismiss either of these two metaphorical angels guarding the door of being is to swing wide open the doors of Hell, and to surrender ourselves to intellectual insanity – with moral and emotional insanity a short distance down the road.

For any orthodox Catholic, these Principles of Being are intimately tied to the inerrancy of the Magisterium and the necessary conviction that, because the Magisterium is a true expression of God’s unchangeable being and truth, something cannot at one moment be taught as essential truth, and at some future time be taught as false. Or its corollary: that something cannot at one time be condemned as error, and subsequently be taught as free from error. Satan’s strategic plan against all Catholics must therefore include the attempt to make us believe that the Church’s Magisterium has violated this principle of reality, and that we must therefore accept the fact that the Magisterium can and has contradicted itself in its fundamental nature as guardian of the truth.

There is no question but that the CDF rehabilitation of Rosmini has given the definite impression that this is exactly what has been done by the Magisterium (even though, as we have seen, it has not actually been done since it leaves intact the condemnation of these propositions if they are interpreted in what we have shown to be their obvious "idealist, ontologist" – in other words, pantheistic – point of view).

The CDF attributes the 19th century condemnation of these 40 Propositions of Rosmini primarily to the renewal of Thomism promoted by Pope Leo XIII. According to the Note, this subjection of all studies to Thomistic philosophy and theology was a provisional or temporary policy adopted by the Church "to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach." And further, "The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St. Thomas Aquinas."

We have now reached the heart of the problem. What is at stake here is Thomism, and all that it teaches us about God, man, and the nature of being. I fully believe that the real reason behind the Rosmini rehabilitation is the agenda to implement alternatives to Thomistic philosophy and theology. And as I have said in previous writings, the central point of contention in this war against Thomism, and against both the being of God and man, is the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Embarrassed by an ontological teaching concerning being, substance, and accidents – a teaching which directly contradicts the reductive philosophy of modern analytical science – these men are intent on establishing an alternative to Thomistic ontology, and to the doctrine of Transubstantiation which "incarnates" this philosophy into Catholic doctrine and belief. The Holy Spirit indeed does prevent any magisterial document from outright contradiction of the defined doctrine of Transubstantiation (or any other doctrine), but It does not necessarily protect us from the confusion generated by non-doctrinal elements in documents such as this Note, even though they be issued by the teaching office of the Church. (ROSMINI'S REHABILITATION AND THE RATZINGER AGENDA: When To Be Is Not To Be)

 

A priest, who shall not be identified as he is, oh, shall we say, absolutely livid (as in foaming at the mouth and jumping up and down like Yosemite Sam with rage angry) with me for embracing sedevacantism, wrote the following last year when asked by me to comment upon the overturning of the Rosmini condemnation and what it says about the theology of Joseph Ratzinger and the paradoxes of the Modernist mind:

7)       Cardinal Ratzinger is accusing Pope Leo XIII of imbecility, of being incapable of reading Rosmini (it is excusable if anyone were incapable of deciphering Rosmini, but that is not a matter of imbecility, but of Rosmini’s incoherence)

8)       In other words, according to the CDF ruling under Cardinal Ratzinger, if Rosmini’s propositions are in error, the Leonine condemnation stands; the propositions are in error, ergo, they are condemned; the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger effected nothing – other than the impression that Rosmini’s propositions are valid and true.  This is vital to understanding the modernists’ modus operandi: They do not intend to make an outright denial of perennial truth so much as to effect an inability amongst the faithful to assert the truth.  This is accomplished through confusion, obfuscation, and misapplying traditional terminology in such a way as to lure the faithful into heterodoxy without technically bringing the Magisterium into error.  At the end of the day, Ratzinger and his ilk can claim not to have officially condoned error.  They will claim that the error lies in ascribing “meaning [to] the propositions…[which do] not belong to the authentic position of [the modernists], but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of [their] works."  Cardinal Ratzinger would have himself absolved in the same way and on the same grounds that he sought to absolve Rosmini.

9)       Proceeding from the previous point, when such self-contradictory and absurd implications are demonstrated to the modernists, the modernists seek to explain away the contradictions as being inadequately articulated or insufficiently understood by the critics; criticism is impossible for the uninitiated and inconceivable to the true believer; terms are rarely, if ever, defined; traditional terms and formulas are co-opted, redefined, and twisted to carry new and contradictory meanings in order to advance the programme of the modernists while retaining the savor of orthodoxy. 

10)   Mr. Larson is absolutely correct in his characterization that the modern decadence in the realm of ontology results in opening “the doors of Hell…surrender[ing] ourselves to intellectual insanity – with moral and emotional insanity a short distance down the road.”

11)   Regarding St. Thomas and the attacks on him by the modernists: Seminaries were given a special charge to maintain the scholarship of the Angelic Doctor as a potent weapon against modernism.  Pope St. Pius X echoed Trent and Vatican I in this.  He also anticipated the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the Code of 1983, Vatican II, statements of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education from the 1970’s through the ‘90’s, and Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Fides et Ratio.  Sad to say, this emphasis on St. Thomas is observed mostly in its being breached.  In Catholic orthodoxy, St. Thomas holds a position similar to that of Plato in philosophy, of whose thought it has been said that all of Western philosophy is merely footnotes.  Defense of the faith against modernism depends not on a slavish or idolatrous parroting of Aquinas, but on a return to his principles so that the thread of his thought can be retrieved and extended.  Modernism has not surpassed St. Thomas; it ignores St. Thomas.  Those who would be faithful to authentic Catholicism ignore St. Thomas at their peril.  To further the truths explained by St. Thomas, we must first study, understand, and internalize St. Thomas.

12)   Modernity’s attack on ontology is rooted in the fact that modernism is an ontology based on accidents.  Being is reduced to a complex of duration-matter-change.  In classical philosophical terms duration is analogous to substance, matter to essence, and change to action.  There is nothing that is not in time.  There is no immaterial being.  All is subject to change.  Change affects knowledge, knowledge of the divine will, the Church and her teaching, moral law, and human being.  Mutability is the arena of all existence.  Nothing and no one is permanent.  Since all is in flux, it can not matter in the ultimate sense where one stands – physically or philosophically – at any given time.  It does not matter where your neighbor is.  You and he will be someplace else tomorrow.  There are those comfortable saying that even eternity is in flux.  Neither the bliss of Heaven nor the pains of hell are eternal.  Nothing is.  Nothing simply is.  So what are the ultimate meaning, purpose, final cause of the universe?  Relativism answers with an emphatic, “Who knows?”  The penultimate opinion of modernity about ultimate things is a rabid agnosticism.  Modern epistemology is a gigantic question mark.  The only knowledge acknowledged is the knowledge that denies knowing and knowability.  This is not the healthy Socratic ignorance that leads to wisdom, but a pathology proclaiming all certitude impossible and facts merely provisional.  (Who but a fool or a lunatic would heed a fiend or madman’s assertion that nothing can be known, brazenly ignoring the fact that such a statement is by self-definition incapable of certitude?)  Under the weight of this raging agnosticism, reason must collapse.  Reason must have facts and principles on which to work.  If all knowledge disintegrates with time and matter, meaning can not be determined or defined.  Without definitions discourse can not occur.  Lacking discourse, there can be no fruitful communication of things bearing lasting significance. “In the end, three things perdure: Faith, Hope, and Charity – and the greatest of these is Charity!” (1 Corinthians 13:13)  But Charity depends on Faith, because God is Love, and without Faith, God can not be known.  Love is built on Faith.  Faith is built on reason.  Reason is built on facts and principles.  Yet in a world lacking hard facts and immutable principles, reason can not operate.  Absent reason, Faith’s grace has no nature to build on.  Faith denied precludes knowledge of God and of His Love.  The greatest transcendent attribute is relegated to non-being.  Love, as all things, does not last forever, for its basis, Faith, changes because of reason being mutable as a result of the transitory state of knowledge.  These different minds with different beliefs and different loves will have different gods, and the existence of many gods denies the existence of one God.

The only conclusion reachable by subjectivism follows a road through relativism, past indifferentism, into agnosticism, and dead-ends in atheism.  What begins as a rebellion against divine authority in the papacy proceeds to assert personal authority in morals, then deposes state authority referent to any faith, and ends in a denial not of divine authority, but in a denial of the divine itself.  Modernism would make God corruptible and mutable.  Change, the corruption of being, is attributed to God.  But “what is seen is transitory; what is unseen is eternal.”  And “that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.”  (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:53)  God must be immortal, incorruptible, and immutable!  God must be!  Simply be: I AM WHO AM!

 

That a man who had forty of his propositions condemned by a true pope is considered to be a fit candidate for "beatification" is a telling statement on how far the revolutionaries will go to raise to their "tables" those who made possible the triumph of their Modernist propositions of contradiction and "continuity in discontinuity." Who's up next? (No, I don't have any "gnostic" abilities in this regard. These are pure guesses). Teilhard de Chardin? Thomas Merton? Abbe Paul Couturier, a disciple of Chardin and the "father" of "spiritual ecumenism" as he was termed by Joseph Ratzinger in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005? Hans Urs von Balthasar? Karl Rahner? Ratzinger himself after his death? The "beatification" of Father Antonio Rosmini, whose genuine love for the poor and unfortunate must be placed in the context of his philosophical warfare against the very nature of God and His Holy Truths, is just part of a revolutionary process by which the Modernist mind is exalted and its adherents "venerated" as holy men and women of the Catholic Church. The pending "canonization" of Karol Wojtyla will be yet another important turning point in this revolutionary process.

Oh, there will be some, especially in the circles of the Society of Saint Pius X, who will continue to "dumb down" the beatification and canonization processes, saying that it is not possible to be certain whether canonization, in particular, truly is an infallible act of the Catholic Church, a representation that is as novel as the novelties of the past forty years. Others will say that the proper "processes" have not been used, thereby placing into question the "legitimacy" of certain beatifications and canonizations (Roncalli, Escriva, Wojtyla). This latter argument overlooks the inconvenient little truth that a true pope, being the supreme legislator of the Catholic Church, can canonize an individual by a mere papal fiat. Chiara Lubitch, the founder of the Focolare "movement," understood this point very well, which is why she helped to organize what appeared to be a "spontaneous" demonstration in the streets of Rome after the funeral "Mass" for Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on April 8, 2005, in order to prompt an immediate decree of canonization for her patron, Wojtyla, from his "successor." As Mr. Michael Cain pointed out recently in The Confusion of Collusion, Lubitch looks forward to the day when her cause will be promoted by her conciliarist friends.

No, there is no way to "square"or to reconcile the beatification and/or canonization of men and women who were at war during their lifetimes with the Catholic Faith as it has been handed down to us over the centuries. And while it is necessary to point out the extent to which the revolutionaries will go to "beatify" and "canonize" their own fellow travelers, we should not be in the least bit "worried" by these developments. Like most everything else to do with the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the "beatification" and "canonization" of Modernists carries no authority whatsoever. It is just part of the dream world of men who fashion themselves to be members of the Catholic Church when the truth of the matter is that fall under the condemnation offered by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

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

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

 

On this great Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, therefore, we need to offer more and more acts of penances to this matchless Heart of Love and Mercy, doing so as the consecrated slaves of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We will not bring conciliarism to an end. God will do so in His good time as He manifests the Triumph of His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart. This Memorare to Our Lady of the Sacred Heart is a good prayer to memorize and to recite every day, perhaps after we pray one of our three daily Rosaries before Our Lady's Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in His Real Presence in a tabernacle of a true Catholic Church:

REMEMBER, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, what ineffable power thy divine Son hath given thee over His own adorable Heart. Filled with confidence in thy merits, we come before thee and implore thy protection. O heavenly Treasurer of the Heart of Jesus, that Heart which is the inexhaustible source of all graces, which thou mayest open to us at thy good pleasure, in order that from it may flow forth upon mankind the riches of love and mercy, light and salvation, that are contained therein; grant unto us, we beseech thee, the favors which we seek ... We can never, never be refused by thee, and since thou art Mother, O our Lady of the Sacred Heart, graciously receive our prayers and grant our request. Amen.

MEMORARE, o Domina Nostra a Sacro Corde, quam ineffabilem tibi potentiam Filius tuus divinus contulerit in suum ipsius Cor adorabile. Pleni nos fiduciae in meritis tuis, accedimus implorantes tuum praesidium. O Cordis Iesu Thesauraria caelestis, illius Cordis, fontis inexhausti gratiarum omnium, quod potes ipsa pro tua voluntate recludere, ut defluant inde in homines divitiae amoris et misericordiae, luminis et salutis, quae in ipso continentur; concede nobis, obsecramus, beneficia quae petimus ... Nulla nobis, nulla a te erit repulsa, et, quoniam Mater Tu nostra es, o Domina Nostra a Sacro Corde, preces nostras benigne habe et benigne exaudi. Amen. (found at: Memorare, o Domina Nostra a Sacro Corde)

 

We can console the twin hearts of love, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by our acts of reparation each and every day. Our own sins have contributed mightily to the confusion and disarray of our present times, both ecclesiastically and civilly. What a privilege it is, therefore, to know that we can undo what our sins have done by living penitentially as the consecrated clients of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We can, therefore, by means of our weekly confessions and a daily, fervent reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion and our tender devotion to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary and by the wearing of the Miraculous Medal and the Brown Scapular, help to plant the seeds for the day when the rot of conciliarism will be wiped away and the false ideas of conciliarists will no longer obscure the clear, certain, immutable truths that Our Lord has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for their safekeeping and infallibly unchanging explication. May it be our privilege to participate, therefore, in daily acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary to help bring about the day when the following cry will be on hearts of all men, prompting them to exclaim with their lips in great love:

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 Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Philip Neri, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saints Monica, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.

 

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

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

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

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

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

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

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

Response:  Amen.