Betraying a Mentor Who Never Betrayed Our Lord

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, has come a long, long way from his days as a priest under the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, who resisted the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo Missae and opposed the "teachings" of the "Second" Vatican Council on ecumenism and religious liberty. A recent interview, which was forwarded to me by the ever intrepid Mr. Mark Stabinski, that Bishop Rifan gave to a "resist and recognize" internet site included his belief that those who quote from the papal documents of the past to refute the "teachings" of the "living magisterium" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (my phrase, obviously, not Bishop Rifan's) are analogous to Martin Luther's interpreting Scripture on his own without referencing the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Rifan stated that the documents of the past can be understood only by the "mediation" of the "living magisterium."

Bishop Rifan made other contentions, notably those about papal infallibility that will be reviewed near the end of this particular article. For present purposes, however, it is necessary to discuss his belief that one is demonstrating a Protestant mentality of "free interpretation" to examine the papal encyclical letters and the dogmatic pronouncements of the twenty legitimate councils of the Catholic Church. He is absolutely correct in this if the "Second" Vatican Council represents a legitimate council of the Catholic Church and if the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are the legitimate holders of authority in the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

There is a little problem, however, with Bishop Rifan's credibility in this regard. Just as Bishop Rifan disowned the Sixty Two Reasons Why We Cannot Attend The Novus Ordo Mass compiled by his own fellow priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney before he waffled and said that he stood by those reasons, which was three years before he banned all criticism of any of his priests who concelebrate the Novus Ordo that they once condemned (see: Bishop Fernando Rifan supports the New Mass and forbids criticism of it) in his Society--and just as Bishop Rifan denied having participated actively in a concelebrated Novus Ordo hootenanny on September 8, 2004, at the Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida, Brazil, before he admitted having "simulated" such a concelebration (VERIFIED: Bishop Rifan concelebrated the New Mass in Sept! and EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions), Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan is now contending that the very reading of the authentic documents and pronouncements of the Catholic Church that his own mentor and ordaining bishop, the late, courageous Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and that bishop's ally in the early days against conciliarism, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, used to denounce much of the work of the conciliar church was the same thing as Martin Luther's "free interpretation" of the Bible without the authority of the Catholic Church's magisterium.

Yes, forget about us crazy sedevacantists. Even forget about priests and laity who have been outside of any formal association with the "pre-reconciled" Campos community or with the Society of Saint Pius X in the "resist and recognize" camp and who have written book after book after book to compare the teaching of the popes of the past with the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council and the words of the postconciliar "pontiffs." Books such as The Devil's Final Battle and The Great Facade are replete with such comparisons; a thirteen page section of the latter book deals with the problem of the word "subsists" in Lumen Gentium as it relates to the postconciliar document Dominus Iesus, citing then Father Joseph Ratzinger's own role in the recommendation of the use of this word and his continued defense of it after the issuance of Dominus Iesus in 2000, asking at one point:

If the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing, then what exactly is this "Church of Christ" whose "being as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church." and which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church while also being present and operative in the Orthodox churches? How can there be an ecclesial entity broader than the Mystical Body itself? As Catholic laymen who believe they understand their Faith, we do not see how Cardinal Ratzinger's opinion can be reconciled with the teaching of the Pius XII; and we also believe we have the right to ask how it can be reconciled.(Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, pp. 357-358, emphasis in text supplied.)

 

Forget about all of that. Forget all of the articles over the decades in The Remnant and the articles in the past fifteen years that have appeared in Catholic Family News that have compared the conciliar and postconciliar documents with older ones. Forget this and similar sedevacantist websites. One needs to look only to Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan's ordaining bishop, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and to Archbishop Lefebvre of the Society of Saint Pius X, neither of whom ever embraced sedevacantism, for a spirited comparison of the truths of the Catholic Faith to the novelties and errors of conciliarism:

During the fifteen days preceding the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Your Holiness has decided to gather together an Extraordinary Synod in Rome, with the purpose of making the Second Vatican Council, which closed twenty years ago, "an ever more living reality."

On the occasion of this event, allow us, who took an active part in the Council, to make known to you with all due respect our apprehensions and our desires, for the good of the Church, and for the salvation of the souls entrusted to us.

These twenty years, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith himself says, have provided sufficient illustration of a situation resulting in a real self-destruction of the Church, except in those areas where the millennial Tradition of the Church has been maintained.

The change wrought within the Church in the nineteen-sixties was given concrete form and expression in the Council by the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which granted man the natural right to be exempt from any restraint imposed on him by divine law to adhere to the Catholic Faith in order to be saved, a restraint necessarily embodied in ecclesiastical and civil laws in subordination to the legislative authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This freedom from any restraint by divine law or human laws in the matter of religion is inscribed among the freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, an impious and sacrilegious declaration condemned by the Popes and in particular by Pope Pius VI in his Encyclical Adeo nota of April 23, 1791, and in his Consistory Allocution of June 17, 1793.

From this Declaration on Religious Liberty the following consequences flow, as from a poisoned spring:

Religious indifferentism of states, even Catholic states, carried out over twenty years, at the instigation of the Holy See.

The ecumenism pursued unceasingly by yourself and by the Vatican, an ecumenism condemned by the Church's Magisterium, and in particular by the Encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI.

All the reforms carried out over twenty years within the Church to please heretics, schismatics, false religions and declared enemies of the Church, such as the Jews, the Communists and the Freemasons.

This freedom from the restraint of divine law in the matter of religion obviously encourages freedom from restraint in all divine and human laws, and destroys all authority in all areas, especially in the area of morals.

We have never ceased protesting, both during the Council and after the Council, at the incredible scandal of this false religious liberty. We have protested in speech and in writing, in private and in public, resting our protest upon the most solemn documents of the Magisterium: among others, the Athanasian Creed, the Fourth Lateran Council, the Syllabus (No. 15), the First Vatican Council (DS 2008), and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the Catholic Faith (IIa IIae, Questions 8 to 16), a doctrine which has been that of the Church for almost twenty centuries, confirmed by Canon Law and its applications.

That is why, if the coming Synod does not return to the traditional Magisterium of the Church, in the question of religious liberty, but instead confirms this serious error from which heresies flow, we shall be forced to think that the members of the Synod no longer profess the Catholic Faith.

For their actions are contrary to the immutable principles of the First Vatican Council, which stated in the fourth Chapter of the Fourth Session:

For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, or the Deposit of Faith, and might faithfully expound it.

This being so, we can only persevere in the Church's holy Tradition and take whatever decisions are necessary for the Church to keep a clergy faithful to the Catholic religion capable of repeating with St. Paul, "For I received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you."

Holy Father, your responsibility is heavily engaged in this new and false conception of the Church which is drawing clergy and faithful into heresy and schism. If the Synod under your authority perseveres in this direction, you will no longer be the Good Shepherd.

We turn to our Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, rosary in hand, begging her to impart to you her Spirit of Wisdom, as to all members of the Synod, in order to put an end to the invasion of Modernism within the Church.

Holy Father, be so good as to forgive the frankness of our approach to you, which has no other purpose than to render unto our one and only Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the honor which is due to Him, as also to His one and only Church, and deign to accept our homage as devoted sons in Jesus and Mary.

Signature: Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle

Signature: Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos  A LETTER TO POPE JOHN PAUL II FROM ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER

 

Although Bishop Rifan presented a 1980 quote from a 1980 article written by Bishop de Castro Mayer that one must accept "the Pope's word," he does not present the evidence that there was a change in his ordaining bishop's approach as signified by the 1985 joint letter above. Archbishop Lefebvre noted in a conference in 1986 that he and Bishop de Castro Mayer had pondered about whether or not the time had come to consider if John Paul II/Karol Wojtyla was not the pope. The omission of these little facts from Bishop Rifan's interview is quite interesting. Bishop Rifan relies upon quotes from Bishop de Castro Mayer from 1980 and 1976 at two different points in his interview, refusing to acknowledge that there is a body of evidence indicating that Bishop de Castro Mayer even considered joining Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter above, no less that he had signed it himself.

Does Bishop Rifan now repudiate the 1985 joint letter, which was written when he was a priest under Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer? Did Bishop de Castro Mayer and Archbishop Lefebvre displease God when they wrote this letter? Were they placing their immortal souls in jeopardy when they did so? Were they demonstrating that Protestant spirit of "free interpretation" of which you wrote in your internet interview? Why did Bishop Rifan sit in stony silence at Archbishop Lefebvre's June 30, 1988, when His Excellency gave the following sermon, an excerpt of which is provided here:

 

Thus you will find among these flyers which are put at your disposal, an admirable study done by Professor Georg May, President of the Seminary of Canon Law in the University of Mayence in Germany, who marvelously explains why we are in a case of necessity: necessity to come and help your souls, to help you! Your applause a while ago was, I think, not a purely temporal manifestation; it was rather a spiritual manifestation, expressing your joy to have at last Catholic bishops and priests who are dedicated to the salvation of your souls, to giving to your souls the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, through good doctrine, through the Sacraments, through the Faith, through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You need this Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ to go to heaven. This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy.

This is why we do this ceremony. Far be it from me to set myself up as pope! I am simply a bishop of the Catholic Church who is continuing to transmit Catholic doctrine. I think, and this will certainly not be too far off, that you will be able to engrave on my tombstone these words of St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi —I have transmitted to you what I have received," nothing else. I am just the postman bringing you a letter. I did not write the letter, the message, this Word of God. God Himself wrote it; Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave it to us. As for us, we just handed it down, through these dear priests here present and through all those who have chosen to resist this wave of apostasy in the Church, by keeping the Eternal Faith and giving it to the faithful. We are just carriers of this Good News, of this Gospel which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us, as well as of the means of sanctification: the Holy Mass, the true Holy Mass, the true Sacraments which truly give the spiritual life.

It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these popes —since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII —telling us:

 

Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.  All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost.

 

Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality —all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is in the process of destroying the Church.

This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.

"And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?"  Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. "That I might recognize my errors" means that, "if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth." What is this truth for them, if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church? Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!

That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to nought, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.

This is why I sent a letter to the pope, saying to him very clearly: "We simply cannot (accept this spirit and proposals), despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to re-assume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds." This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.

It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is "Operation Survival". If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation Suicide." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.

You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me —this will certainly not be long —from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of [Holy] Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible. Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the Sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for 20 centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.

So I cannot, in good conscience, leave these seminarians orphaned. Neither can I leave you orphans by dying without providing for the future. That is not possible. It would be contrary to my duty.

This is why we have chosen, with the grace of God, priests from our Society who have seemed to us to be the most apt, whilst being in circumstances and in functions which permit them more easily to fulfill their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries. Thus I believe that with the grace of God, we, Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself, by these consecrations, will have given to Tradition the means to continue, given the means to Catholics who desire to remain within the Church of their parents, their grandparents, of their ancestors. They built churches with beautiful altars, often destroyed and replaced by a table, thus manifesting the radical change which has come about since the Council regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the heart of the Church and the purpose of the priesthood. Thus we wish to thank you for having come in such numbers to support us in the accomplishment of this ceremony.

We turn to the Blessed Virgin Mary. You well know, my dear brethren, you must have been told of Leo XIII's prophetic vision revealing that one day "the See of Peter would become the seat of iniquity." He said it in one of his exorcisms, called "The Exorcism of Leo XIII." Has it come about today? Is it tomorrow? I do not know. But in any case it has been foretold. Iniquity may quite simply be error. Error is iniquity: to no longer profess the Faith of all time, the Catholic Faith, is a grave error. If there ever was an iniquity, it is this. And I really believe that there has never been a greater iniquity in the Church than Assisi, which is contrary to the First Commandment of God and the First Article of the Creed. It is incredible that something like that could have ever taken place in the Church, in the eyes of the whole Church —how humiliating! We have never undergone such a humiliation! You will be able to find all of this in Fr. LeRoux's booklet which has been especially published in order to give you information on the present situation in Rome.

It was not only the good Pope Leo XIII who said these things, but Our Lady prophesied them as well. Just recently, the priest who takes care of the Society's priory in Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of "Buen Suceso,"  —of "Good Fortune," to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the 20th century, saying explicitly that during the 19th century and most of the 20th century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.

I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety —saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.

Of course, you well know the apparitions of Our Lady at La Salette, where she says that Rome will lose the Faith, that there will be an "eclipse" at Rome; an eclipse, see what Our Lady means by this.

And finally, closer to us, the secret of Fatima. Without a doubt, the Third Secret of Fatima must have made an allusion to this darkness which has invaded Rome, this darkness which has invaded the world since the Council. And surely it is because of this, without a doubt, that John XXIII judged it better not to publish the Secret: it would have been necessary to take measures, such steps as he possibly felt himself incapable of doing, e.g., completely changing the orientations which he was beginning to take in view of the Council, and for the Council.

There are the facts upon which, I think, we can lean.

We place ourselves in God's providence. We are convinced that God knows what He is doing. Cardinal Gagnon visited us 12 years after the suspension: after 12 years of being spoken of as outside of the communion of Rome, as rebels and dissenters against the pope, his visit took place. He himself recognized that what we have been doing is just what is necessary for the reconstruction of the Church. The cardinal even assisted pontifically at the Mass which I celebrated on December 8, 1987, for the renewal of the promises of our seminarians. I was supposedly suspended and, yet, after 12 years, I was practically given a clean slate. They said we have done well. Thus we did well to resist! I am convinced that we are in the same circumstances today. We are performing an act which apparently… —and unfortunately the media will not assist us in the good sense. The headlines will, of course, be "Schism," "Excommunication!" to their heart's content —and, yet, we are convinced that all these accusations of which we are the object, all penalties of which we are the object, are null, absolutely null and void, and of which we will take no account. Just as I took no account of the suspension, and ended up by being congratulated by the Church and by progressive churchmen, so likewise in several years —I do not know how many, only the Good Lord knows how many years it will take for Tradition to find its rights in Rome —we will be embraced by the Roman authorities, who will thank us for having maintained the Faith in our seminaries, in our families, in civil societies, in our countries, and in our monasteries and our religious houses, for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. THE 1988 CONSECRATIONS SERMON OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

 

Does Bishop Rifan now regret having played an important part in the Mass wherein Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated and his own Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer co-consecrated four priests as bishops for the Society of Saint Pius X? While I know full well that one can change his mind and recognize his past errors, doing so has consequences, among them being that you must admit, without any malice or spirit of righteousness whatsoever, that your past colleagues were mistaken (and, in my own case, that men I accepted as priests were not validly ordained). Bishop Rifan likes to poke his finger at those who criticize the "Second" Vatican Council and its synthetic religion. Fine. Go right ahead, Your Excellency. In poking your finger at those of us who use simple logic to point out that no amount of "mediation" can be two contradictory statements be true (unless one is an Hegelian, that is), you are also pointing poking your finger at the graves of two men who used the documents of the past to condemn the "Second" Vatican Council and its synthetic religion, the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer and the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Bishop Rifan must also poke his finger at the late Bishop Salvatore L. Lazo, another non-sedevacantist "free interpreter" of past documents, who wrote the following to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul IIin 1998:

To His Holiness POPE JOHN PAUL II Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City.

Ascension Thursday
May 21, 1998

Most Holy Father,

On the tenth anniversary of the consecration of the four Catholic bishops by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the survival of the Catholic Faith, by the grace of God, I declare that I am Roman Catholic. My religion was founded by Jesus Christ when he said to Peter:

Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, I will build my Church. (Mt. 16:18)

Holy Father, my Credo is the Apostles’ Creed. The deposit of Faith came from Jesus Christ and was completed at the death of the last Apostle. It was entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church to serve as a guide for the salvation of souls to the end of time.

St. Paul instructed Timothy: "O Timothy, keep the deposit." (I Tim. 6:20), the deposit of Faith!

Holy Father, it seems that St. Paul is telling me:

Keep the deposit… the deposit that is entrusted to you, not discovered by you. You received it: you did not draw it from your resources. It is not the fruit of any personal understanding but of teaching. It is not personal use, but it belongs to public tradition. It does not come from you, but it has come to you. With respect to it, you cannot act as an author, but only a simple keeper. You are not its initiator but its disciple. It is not for you to direct it, but your duty to follow it. (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, No. 21).

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the Sacred Dogmas which must always be preserved is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding. (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 1800).

The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not that they might make known new doctrine by His Revelation but rather that, with His assistance, they mighty religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles. (Vatican I,  Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Æternus Dz. 1836)

Moreover, "the power of the pope is not unlimited; not only can he not change anything which is of divine institution (to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, for instance), but he is to build and not to destroy (cf. II Cor. 10, 8); he is enjoined, through natural law, not to sow confusion in the flock of Christ" (Dict. De Théol. Cath., II, col. 2039-2040).

St. Paul too confirmed the Faith of his converts: "But though we or an angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:8)

As a Catholic bishop, briefly, this is my stand on the post-Conciliar reforms of the Second Vatican Council. If the Conciliar reforms are according to the will of Jesus Christ, then, I will gladly cooperate in their implementation. But if the Conciliar reforms are planned for the destruction of the Catholic Religion founded by Jesus Christ, then, I refuse to give my cooperation.

Holy Father, in 1969, a communication from Rome was received in San Fernando Diocese of La Union. It said the Tridentine Latin Mass was to be suppressed and the Novus Ordo Missae was to be implemented. There was no reason given. Since the order came from Rome it was obeyed without any protest (Roma locuta est, causa finita est).

I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae.

The Novus Ordo Missae was a concoction of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, a freemason. Six Protestant ministers helped Monsignor Bugnini in fabricating it. The innovators saw to it that no Catholic dogmas fully and replaced them with very ambiguous Protestantizing and heretical things. They even changed the form of the consecration given by Jesus Christ. With these modifications, the new rite of the Mass became more Protestant than Catholic.

The Protestants maintain that the Mass is a mere meal, a mere communion, a mere banquet, a memorial. The Council of Trent emphasized the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is an unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Christ on Mount Calvary. "He, therefore, our god and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross… offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine… at the last supper on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented…" (Dz 938). The Mass is also as a consequence a communion to the sacrifice previously celebrated: a banquet where one eats the immolated Victim of the sacrifice. But if there is no sacrifice there is no communion with it. Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice and secondly a communion or a meal.

It is also noted that in the Novus Ordo Missae, Christ’s Real Eucharistic Presence is implicitly denied. The same observation is also true concerning the Church’s doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Connected with this, in the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest has been demoted from a priest who offers a sacrifice to one who merely presides over the assembly. Now he is the president of the assembly. For this role he faces the people. In the Traditional Mass, the priest, on the contrary, faces the tabernacle and the altar where Christ is.

After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the New Rite of Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries.

Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of St. Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the "universal salvation", it contradicts Sacred Scripture.

Holy Father, are all men going to be saved? Jesus Christ wanted all men to be redeemed. In fact, He died for us all. Still, not all men are going to be saved because not all men fulfill all the necessary conditions in order to be numbered among the elects of God in Heaven.

Before Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, He entrusted to His Apostles the duty of preaching the Gospel to every creature. His instructions already hinted that all souls were not going to be saved. He said: "Go into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mk. 16:15-16).

St. Paul supported this in his instruction to his converts: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the Kingdom of God? Do not err, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterous, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the Kingdom of God." (I Cor. 6:9-10)

Holy Father, should we respect false religions? Jesus Christ founded only one Church in which one can find eternal salvation. This is the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. When He gave all the doctrines and all the truths needed to be saved Christ did not say: "Respect all false religions." In fact, the Son of God was crucified on the cross because He did not compromise His teaching.

In 1910, in his letter "Our Apostolic Mandate", Pope St. Pius X warned that the interdenominational spirit is part of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for a one world church. Pope Leo XIII warned that to "treat all religions alike… is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic Religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions (Encyclical Humanum Genus). The process is this: FROM CATHOLICISM TO PROTESTANTISM; FROM PROTESTANTISM TO MODERNISM; FROM MODERNISM TO ATHEISM.

Ecumenism, as practiced today, flies in the face of traditional Catholic doctrine and practices. It places the one true Religion established by Our Lord on the same base level with false, man-made religions —something that popes throughout the centuries absolutely forbade Catholics to do: "It is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these (ecumenical) assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Ss. Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884.

Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope St. Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907.

I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils.

But I support the Rome that leads the Catholic Church faithfully to do the will of Jesus Christ —the glorification of the most Holy and Triune God —God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I consider myself fortunate because in this present crisis of the Catholic Church I received the grace to have returned to the Church that adheres to Catholic Tradition. Thank God, I am again saying the traditional Latin Mass —the Mass instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the Mass of my ordination.

May the Blessed Mother Mary, St. Joseph, St. Anthony, my patron saint, St. Michael and my Guardian Angel assist me to remain faithful to the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of men.

May I obtain the grace to remain and die in the bosom of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church that adheres to the ancient traditions and be always a faithful priest and bishop of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Most respectfully,

+ Salvador L. Lazo, D.D. Bishop Emeritus San Fernando Diocese of La Union, Philippines BISHOP LAZO'S DECLARATION OF FAITH

Was Bishop Lazo wrong, Bishop Rifan, to have made such comparisons between the documents of the past without the "mediation" of the "living magisterim" associated with the Novus Ordo Missae and the "Second" Vatican Council?

Not even Giovanni Montini/Paul VI was willing to engage Archbishop Lefebvre when the latter raised the issue of the contrast represented by Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae with the teaching of Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX:

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

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

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

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

Montini: "And why not religious liberty?"

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

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

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

 

Bishop Rifan noted in his internet interview that his "resistance," as he termed it, to abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae continues. However, he makes no reference at all to the specific doctrinal problems pointed out by Bishop de Castro Mayer in his 1969 letter to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The Novus Ordo Missae is the liturgical abuse par excellence. (See: BISHOP ANTONIO DE CASTRO MAYER'S LETTER TO POPE PAUL VI REGARDING THE PROMULGATION OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE.) Bishop de Castro Mayer refused to implement the Novus Ordo Missae, maintaining that position until he resigned as the diocesan ordinary of Campos in 1981 and maintaining the Immemorial Mass of Tradition without any concessions whatsoever to the Novus Ordo until his death in 1991 just a few months after the death of his associate, Archbishop Lefebvre. Was Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer guilty of a schismatic mentality in so doing, Bishop Rifan? Should he have "concebrated" Novus Ordo services as you have done?

Part of what Bishop Rifan wrote in his internet interview is perfectly in accord with Catholic teaching. That is, Bishop Rifan's view of the necessity of Catholics accepting the "teachings of the "Second Vatican Council" as binding is indeed perfectly true if the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church, which, of course, it is not precisely because it teaches things contrary to the Faith of our fathers. Nevertheless, Bishop Rifan's view, which is a contradiction of the stand taken by the bishops and priests of Campos prior to their "reconciliation" on January 18, 2002, is legitimate. One who is part of the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism cannot fall into the Gallican errors of "pick and choose" condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei in 1794. Father Anthony Cekada made a similar point in his masterful July 9, 2006, sermon, The Errors of the Society of St Pius X. (See also: His Excellency Bishop Donald Sanborn's incisive, compelling and most clear analysis of the whole crisis facing the Church in Vatican II, the Pope and SSPX: Q & A and His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas's The Campos Defection and the Illogical Theology of the SSPX and The Infallibility of the Catholic Church.)

One either accepts conciliarism or rejects it. Period. I was a "practical sedevacantist" about a decade before I began taking those steps that would lead me to an acceptance of the full truth of our situation, aided in no small measure by the writings of the "nine" as well as by the work of Bishop Pivarunas and the wonderful, truly pastoral guidance offered to us by His Excellency Bishop Daniel Dolan during the summer of 2006. By a "practical sedevacantist" I mean to say it was the case by around 1995 and 1996 that I never referred to any of the "social teaching" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII or Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. A reader of The Wanderer wrote to me to ask me why this was the case: had I decided that they were not genuine popes? I was a "practical" or "material' sedevacantist at the time, able to see the clarity of the Catholic teaching contained in the older encyclical letters while seeing little else but complexity and ambiguity, if not outright contradictions of those older encyclical letters and dogmatic decrees, in the conciliar and postconciliar documents. It took me much longer to recognize that the "magisterium" of the postconciliar era was not the "magisterium" of the Catholic Church.

The bottom line underlining the entire ethos of conciliarism is its attack on the nature of dogmatic truth. As has been noted in a variety of different articles in the past few months on this site, Joseph Ratzinger has stated without any decree of equivocation whatsoever that the Catholic Church is not bound to accept past papal pronouncements that have become obsolete, believing that truth is perceived in the mind and that a "substantial anchorage" of it in one place at one time does not preclude a subsequent anchorage at another, just another way of putting forth the Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. No man who believes in the mutability of dogmatic truth is a Catholic. While we pray most fervently for the conversion of such a man and recognize that Modernists do mix truth and error and thus will sound and even act very much like a Catholic now and again, if not a lot of the time, there cannot be one little drop of poison in the mind of a Catholic, certainly not one who has studied theology extensively, knows the teaching of the Catholic Church very well but contends nevertheless that past teachings can become obsolete.

Once again, a study in contrasts, one not presented by Bishop Rifan, is very important to present:

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.” (Joseph Ratzinger, L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding. . . .

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 [conciliar] Curia, December 22, 2005.)

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." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

 

One does not have to read the older encyclicals as they "mediated" by the nonexistent authority of apostates. As Bishop Sanborn noted to us on April 4, 2007, Wednesday in Holy Week, Denziger (the compendium of Church teaching) demonstrates that there was but one voice speaking for the Catholic Church throughout the ages. One voice teaching the same thing. Our friend Father Francisco Radecki, C.M.R.I., demonstrates this by carrying around a fold-out depiction of each of the popes, including the false popes of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, explaining that every one of the true popes taught one thing prior to 1958 and that the five since that time have taught different things.

In this time of apostasy and betrayal, therefore, we must cling as never before to Our Lady, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. Her Divine Son has been mystically handed over, tried, condemned, scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and buried. We must stand by the mystical tomb with Our Lady, making offerings each day of our prayers and penances and mortifications and sufferings and humiliations and fasting through her Most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Saint Raphael the Archangel helped Tobias to restore the sight of his blind father with fish gall. He helped to guide Tobias on his journeys. May the intercession of Saint Raphael the Archangel, combined with that of Saint Lucy, who can help the eyes of our souls to see things more clearly just as she can help the eyes of our body to see things more clearly, and Saint Christopher, help us as the consecrated slaves of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary to find our way to an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise by cleaving to the true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end. May it be our singular privilege to plant a few seeds for what will be a glorious triumph beyond all telling.

Vivat Christus Rex. Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us now and the hour of our deaths. Amen.

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

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 Luke the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Hilarion, pray for us.

Saint John Cantius, pray for us.

Saint Peter of Alcantara, pray for us.

Saint Hedwig, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Francis Borgia, pray for us.

Saint Edward the Confessor, pray for us.

Saint John Leonard, pray for us.

Saint Dionysisus (Denis), Rusticus and Eleutherius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Placidus and Companions, pray for us.

Saint Bruno, pray for us.

Saint Wenceslaus, pray for us.

Saint Jerome, pray for us.

Saint Remigius, pray for us.

Saint Clotilde, pray for us.

Saints Cosmas and Damian, pray for us.

Pope Saint Linus, pray for us.

Saint Peter Nolasco, pray for us.

Saint Raymond Pennafort, pray for us.

Saint Raymond Nonnatus, pray for us.

Saint Thecla, pray for us.

Saint Matthew, pray for us.

Saint Eustachius and Family, pray for us.

Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, pray for us.

Saint Joseph Cupertino, pray for us.

Saint Januarius, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Saint Giles, pray for us.

Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.

Saint Rose of Lima, pray for us.

Saint Nicomedes, pray for us.

Saint Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.

Pope Saint Zephyrinus, pray for us.

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

Saint Jane Frances de Chantal, pray for us.

Saint Bartholomew, pray for us.

Saint Philip Benizi, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint John Eudes, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us, pray for us.

Saint Agapitus, pray for us.

Saint Helena, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Clare of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.

Saints Monica, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Turibius, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 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 V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

Blessed Humbeline, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.

Father Maximilian Kolbe,M.I., pray for us.

Father Frederick Faber, 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.