Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
July 30, 2013

Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!

Part One

 by Thomas A. Droleskey

[1] These are the names of the children of Israel, that went into Egypt with Jacob: they went in, every man with his household: [2] Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Juda, [3] Issachar, Zabulon, and Benjamin, [4] Dan, and Nephtali, Gad and Aser. [5] And all the souls that came out of Jacob' s thigh, were seventy: but Joseph was in Egypt.

[6] After he was dead, and all his brethren, and all that generation, [7] The children of Israel increased, and sprung up into multitudes, and growing exceedingly strong they filled the land. [8] In the mean time there arose a new king over Egypt, that knew not Joseph: [9] And he said to his people: Behold the people of the children of Israel are numerous and stronger than we. [10] Come, let us wisely oppress them, lest they multiply: and if any war shall rise against us, join with our enemies, and having overcome us, depart out of the land.


Unlike the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph, the recently installed pharaoh of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, does know "Joseph," who is in this case Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.  However, well-meaning Bergoglio/Francis believes his predecessor as the pharaoh of the counterfeit church of conciliarism may have been when he issued Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, he, Bergoglio/Francis, is alarmed that what he sees as a new group of stubborn, hard-headed, static "Pelagians" have multiplied like the Hebrews following the death of Joseph. It is now time, as he sees it, to oppress them to drive them out of the land of conciliarism once and for all.

Although Pharaoh Bergoglio has been using a relentless barrage of words to show his disdain for traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the very mistaken belief that they represent the Catholic Church, he declared war upon them "officially" on Sunday when he spoke the following words to the leadership of the Latin American "episcopal" conference (CELAM):


d) The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small groups, in some new religious congregations, in tendencies to doctrinal or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover” the lost past. (Address of Francis the Pied-Piper of Antichrist to CELAM leadership.)

Let me reiterate what I wrote yesterday about this passage:


Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis meant to plunge a sword right through heart of Summorum Pontificum, issued by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on July 7, 2007, and to mock those religious congregations such as the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem, the Clear Creek (Oklahoma) Benedictines, Monks of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel (Wyoming), Society of Saint John Cantius (which also stages the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at Saint John Cantius Church in Chicago, Illinois), Canons Regular of the Mother of God (France), Fraternity of Saint Vincent Ferrer (France), various Benedictine communities in France (Fontgambault, Le Barroux, Randol), Mariwald (Germany) and, among others, the Servants of Jesus and Mary (Germany).

Hey, fellas, wake up! 

To use a colloquial expression that come into vogue in recent years, your "pope" just "dissed" y'all! Wake up! He's saying that you want doctrinal and disciplinary "safety," that your groups are static and capable of "regression" as you seek furtively, he believes, to "recover" the long past.

Una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco, fellas? (Francis The Pied Piper of Antichrist.)

Pharaoh Francis wasted no time upon his return from Rome to demonstrate that he meant what he said yesterday. It is no accident in the slightest that a decree from the conciliar Congregation for Religious, headed by that "ultra-progressive," Focolare-supporting Brazilian revolutionary named Joao Braz de Aviz (see Christ The King Says A Decisive "NO!" To Apostasy Part Two), dated July 11, 2013, commanding the priests/presbyters Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (known also as the "Kolbe Franciscans") to stage the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and, in contravention to the provision of Pharaoh Joseph's Summorum Pontificum, to receive permission from conciliar officials in order to offer/stage the 1962/2013 modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Here is a report of the decree by Vaticanologist Sandro Magister, who is, poor man, incredulous at this very, very predictable turn of events:


To read the decree issued by the Vatican congregation for religious shortly before the voyage of Francis in Brazil, with the explicit approval of the pope himself, one must agree more with the latter than with the former.

The decree bears the date of July 11, 2013, the protocol number 52741/2012, and the signatures of the prefect of the congregation, Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, a focolarino, and of the secretary of the same congregation, Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo, a Franciscan.

Braz de Aviz is the only high-ranking official in the curia of Brazilian nationality, and because of this he has accompanied Francis on his voyage to Rio de Janeiro. He has a reputation as a progressive, although that of a scatterbrain fits him better. And he will probably be one of the first to go when the reform of the curia announced by Francis takes shape.

Rodríguez Carballo instead enjoys the pope's complete trust. His promotion as second-in-command of the congregation was backed by Francis himself at the beginning of his pontificate.

It is difficult, therefore, to think that pope Bergoglio was unaware of what he was approving when he was presented with the decree before its publication.

The decree installs an apostolic commissioner - in the person of the Capuchin Fidenzio Volpi - at the head of all the communities of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

And this in itself is cause for astonishment. Because the Franciscans of the Immaculate are one of the most flourishing religious communities born in the Catholic Church in recent decades, with male and female branches, with many young vocations, spread over several continents and with a mission in Argentina as well.

They want to be faithful to tradition, in full respect for the magisterium of the Church. So much so that in their communities they celebrate Masses both in the ancient rite and in the modern rite, as moreover do hundreds of religious communities around the world - the Benedictines of Norcia, to give just one example - applying the spirit and the letter of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum" of Benedict XVI.

But precisely this was contested by a core group of internal dissidents, who appealed to the Vatican authorities complaining of the excessive propensity of their congregation to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite, with the effect of creating exclusion and opposition within the communities, of undermining internal unity and, worse, of weakening the more general "sentire cum Ecclesia."

The Vatican authorities responded by sending an apostolic visitor one year ago. And now comes the appointment of the commissioner.

But what is most astonishing are the last five lines of the decree of July 11:

"In addition to the above, the Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.

The astonishment stems from the fact that what is decreed contradicts the dispositions given by Benedict XVI, which for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite “sine populo" demand no previous request for authorization whatsoever:

"Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui" (1).

While for Masses "cum populo" they set out a few conditions, but always guaranteeing the freedom to celebrate.

In general, against a decree of a Vatican congregation it is possible to have recourse to the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, today headed by a cardinal, the American Raymond Leo Burke, considered a friend by the traditionalists.

But if the decree is the object of approval in a specific form on the part of the pope, as it seems to be in this case, recourse is not admitted

The Franciscans of the Immaculate will have to comply with the prohibition on celebrating the Mass in the ancient rite beginning Sunday, August 11.

And now what will happen, not only among them but in the whole Church?

It was the conviction of Benedict XVI that "the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching." He had explained this in the heartfelt letter to the bishops of the whole world with which he had accompanied the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum":

But from now on this is no longer the case, at least not for all. For the Franciscans of the Immaculate, forced to celebrate the Mass only in the modern form, there remains just one way to take to heart what Benedict XVI also hoped: to "demonstrate" in this form as well, "more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage."

The fact is that one pillar of the pontificate of Joseph Ratzinger has been cracked. By an exception that many fear - or hope - will soon become the rule. (Sandro Magister, For the First Time, Francis Contradicts Benedict.)

Poor Signore Magister does not realize that there is nothing stable, nothing secure for Modernists, not even in the structures and decrees of their own false church. He also does not realize that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum merely to "pacify spirits" and to break-down obstinacy and narrow-mindedness as a means to lead traditionally-minded Catholics into an acceptance of a "unified" "reform of the reform" at some point in the future.

In actuality, therefore, Pharaoh Joseph and Pharaoh Francis have identical views about traditionally-minded Catholics, differing, of course, on how to deal with them. Pharaoh Joseph wanted to "pacify" them in order to "convert" them. Pharaoh Francis wants to the lower the boom on them.

Consider Ratzinger/Benedict's own words in the letter that he wrote on March 10, 2009,  to the world's conciliar "bishops" to explain why he had "remitted" the excommunications that his predecessor, Pharaoh Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, had imposed upon the four priests of the Society of Saint Pius X after they had been consecrated as bishops by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Mayer Castro of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil:


Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Pharaoh Joseph/Benedict and his successor, Pharaoh Jorge/Francis, share absolutely identical views of the "arrogance" and "presumptuousness" of traditionally-minded Catholics who have "an obsession with one-sided positions." This is beyond all question whatsoever.

Pharaoh Joseph, though, believed that he could kill the 1962 version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition with kindness as he sought to modernize it incrementally (see Next Stop On The Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round: 1969 And Beyond) and to purchase silence from traditionally-minded Catholics about such "little" things as the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, inter-religious prayer services and dialogue, religious liberty, separation of Church and State and heretical interpretations of Sacred Scripture while distorting and misrepresenting the lives of various saints and the teaching of Holy Mother Church's Fathers and Doctors in exchange for having a supposedly "traditional" Mass that keeps being modernized. Pharaoh Joseph believed that he could boil these arrogant folks a little bit at a time as though they were frogs being boiled alive as their amphibious bodies kept adjusting to each elevation of heat. Pharaoh Joseph was a Girondist or a Menshevik in this regard, a "moderate" revolutionary in dealing with such poor goofs.

Pharaoh Jorge/Francis, however, is a Jacobin, a Bolshevik. He has no use for any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. He has shown us his own "liberated" style of liturgical stage production, and it was on full display two days on Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil. He does not want to "kill" traditionally-minded Catholics with "kindness." He simply wants to kill them by making life intolerable for them within the structures of his false church, which he believes exists not to sanctify and to save souls but to "go out into the streets" to "serve" the "poor" with gestures of empty humanitarianism that had been condemned as such by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

For Pharaoh Jorge/Francis, you see, its ˇViva la Revolución!

It is very telling, ladies and gentlemen, that the conciliar revolutionaries targeted the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, who are, despite their own internal divisions that precipitated the decree issued by Congregation for the Religious on July 11, 2013, superb defenders of Total Marian Consecration as taught by Father Maximilian Kolbe and whose work in defense of Special Creation against the disproved ideology of evolutionism, with all of the real problems that face Catholics in the conciliar structures today. These friars are mistaken about the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal. They are mistaken about the sacramental validity of the conciliar liturgical rites, including those of episcopal consecration, priestly ordination and what is called the "ordinary form of the 'one' Roman Rite, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that is abominable in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. However, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are not any kind of problem facing Catholics in the conciliar structures today.

Pharaoh Jorge/Francis, though, is a revolutionary. Anyone who does not accept the precepts of revolution or who even expresses reservations about them privately without writing about them publicly is in se "divisive" and must be dealt with sternly. 

The action taken against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate was a shot across the bow to the traditionally-minded religious groups that operate under the sufferance of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, which is under the jurisdiction of a heretic who is not considered to be revolutionary enough for the likes of Pharaoh Jorge/Francis, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Deformation and Deconstruction of the Catholic Faith. Bergoglio/Francis and his appointees are warning them to keep their mouths shut, that the day will come soon enough when they will be faced, either individually over time or collectively at once, with a "papal" decree to start staging the Novus Ordo liturgical service in local parishes to assist the "bishops" in whose dioceses their communities operate.

This is all so thoroughly predictable. Just take a look at Mister Potter's Big Cigar. Motu Plus Two, Strictly by the Script, "Reconciliations" at the Price of Truth, Liturgy: The Final Frontier, Hook, Line and Sinker, A Shopworn Line:" He Just 'Had' to Say That ", A Trap Goes Snap, Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round, Taking The Obvious For Granted, Enough Spin To Make Our Heads Spin, With Perfection Staring Directly At Them, The Cost of "Recognition" Keeps Getting Higher and Higher, Answering to the Enemies of Christ the King, An Act That Speaks For Itself, Singing the Old Songs, No Lessons Learned After Forty Years of Appeasement and Apostasy, Defending the Truth is Never Any Kind of Game, High Church, Low Church, Those Who Deny The Holocaust, Disciples of Caiphas, Under The Bus, Nothing New Under the Conciliar Sun, Story Time in Econe, Yes, Sir, Master Scribe, No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part one, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part two, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part three, As the Conciliar Fowler Lays More Snares, part four, The Better Mousetrap, Obeying The Commands of a False Church, Consistently Inconsistent, "Cardinals" Burke and Canizares, Meet The Council of Trent, Veritable Clouseaus and among so many others, the afore cited Next Stop On The Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round: 1969 And Beyond.

No, there is to be no "reform of the reform" under Pharaoh Jorge/Francis. It's ¡Viva la Revolución! and his fellow Jacobins who have know issued a stern warning to all traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the conciliar structures by singling out the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

This is all so very sad as those who remained silent in the face of abominable outrages against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity that have been committed by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as an expression of "gratitude" for Summorum Pontificum will come to consider it virtuous to frequent the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Protestant service that so many of them once abhorred and publicly criticized without recognizing that such an liturgical atrocity could never be promulgated under the authority of a true Successor of Saint Peter. And this is how the devil wins in these circumstances, first by apparent acts of "kindness" and then with brutal blows against slow in order to eradicate a "past" that is said to be "static" but which the adversary knows the most dynamic force on the face of this earth to back him in chains, the fullness of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Second only to the Holy Mass itself in the effort to put the devil and his minions back in chains is our reliance upon Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary and total consecration to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. May we pray, therefore, for those in the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who see that there are problems with the documents, the liturgy and the pastoral practices of the conciliar church will come to realize and then to accept the simple fact that it is impossible for the Catholic Church, the spotless, virginal Mystical Bride of her Divine Founder, Mystical Spouse and Invisible Head, Christ the King, to be responsible for any of this. (The appendices below explain the invalidity of the conciliar rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination. For another examination of the invalidity of the latter, please see Father Kevin Vaillancourt's "Father" or Not?)

Who ways so?

Well, let's take a little look:


These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

We pray that those who are now suffering in the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate will come to recognize and to accept that The Chair is Still Empty.

Although none of us is one whit better than those Catholics who have not as of yet come to accept the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, we must nevertheless pray to Our Lady for perseverance in these troubling times as it is easy to be intimidated and to fall prey to the sin of human respect, fearing earthly consequences for an adherence to truth. It is easy to "go back," especially for the sake of "appearances" or for earthly success or for that of "fellowship."

We need to rely constantly upon the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that He sends to us through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to remain strong in our refusal to associate with the conciliar revolutionaries or to accord them any other status than apostates whose beliefs, words and practices have expelled them from the very bosom of Holy Mother Church.

This account of the martyrdom of Saints Abdon and Sennen, whose feast we celebrate today, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, should inspire us to persist in our refusal to adore the idols of conciliarism or that of the world around us:


Abdon and Sennen were Persians. In the reign of the Emperor Decius they were accused of interring, on their own farm, the bodies of Christians, which had been thrown out unburied. The Emperor commanded them to be arrested and ordered to sacrifice to the gods. This they refused to do, and persistently preached that Jesus Christ is God, whereupon they were put into strict confinement. When Decius afterwards returned to Rome, he had them led in chains in his triumph. Being thus dragged into the city and up to the idols, they abhorred and spat upon them, for which they were cast to bears and lions; the beasts were afraid to touch them. They were butchered with the sword, and the corpses, with their feet bound together, were dragged before the image of the sun. Thence they were stolen away, and the Deacon Quirinus buried them in his own house. (The Divine Office, July 30.)

Hardly "ecumenical" on the part of Saints Abdon and Sennen. Then again, they were Catholic. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and friends are not.

Once again, the words of Saint Athanasius written during the Arian heresy apply just as much today as they did when he wrote them:


May God console you!...What saddens you...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there -- they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way...

You are the ones who are happy. You who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to us from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from It and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

(Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)

"What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?"

These are words to remember. No place, not even places where the Holy Mass was once offered by true bishops and true priests, is more important than the Faith. We must seek out that true Faith today as we make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, recognizing, of course, that we are not one whit better than anyone else and that we have much for which to make reparation as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Every Rosary we pray, offered up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the state of the Church Militant on earth and for that of the world-at-large, and those of the whole world, including the conciliarists who blaspheme God regularly by means of lies such as the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of the very Mother of God who brought forth her Divine Son on Christmas Day and presented Him in the Temple on the same day as her own ritual purification that is commemorated this Saturday, the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.

Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saints Abdon and Sennen, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Father Louis Campbell on the Invalidity of the Conciliar Rite of Episcopal Consecration


“Let no one lead you astray with empty words,” warns St. Paul in today’s Epistle (Eph.5:6). We must keep the faith, the faith of our fathers, handed on to us from the Apostles by saints and martyrs, the fathers and doctors of the Church, and holy popes and bishops. Now it is our turn to teach the faith, handing it on to the younger generation unchanged and untainted by heresy, lest the Church become the desolate kingdom spoken of by Our Lord in the Gospel. 

Many, “with empty words,” have tried to destroy the Catholic faith – Arius, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, to name a few. Then came the Modernists, condemned by Pope St. Pius X, whose heresies lived on to be re-hatched at Vatican II by the liberal theologians, and canonized by the conciliar popes.

If one were to set out to destroy the Catholic faith, a good place to begin would be to tamper with the Sacraments, the Sacrament of Baptism, for instance. But every well instructed Catholic knows that the essential rite of Baptism requires the pouring of water upon the head of the person (or immersing the person in the water) while saying the words: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (or Holy Spirit).  

If the priest baptizing were to say, “I pour upon you the life-giving waters of salvation, that you may share the life of the Holy Trinity,” we would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Sacrament was invalid, and that the person would have to be re-baptized using the form that is required for validity. We would not have to wait for the theologians to debate the matter, or for the Holy See to issue a decree of nullity. Any Catholic in his right mind would know that the attempted Baptism was invalid. Any attempt by the “liturgical experts” to change the essentials of the Sacrament would not have been tolerated by the Catholic faithful.   

But consider some of the other sacraments. Most of us knew little of what was required, for instance, for the valid consecration of a bishop. In a ceremony rarely witnessed by most of the faithful, the Sacrament was administered in Latin amid mysterious and lengthy rites. Change the form of this Sacrament, and who would notice? Then what better way to destroy the Catholic Church than to render invalid the Sacrament of Holy Orders, since true bishops are absolutely necessary if the Church is to survive?    

The essential matter and form for the valid consecration of a bishop was determined by Pope Pius XII on November 30, 1947, in the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 40, 1948, 5-7), a document which appears to have all the essential characteristics of infallibility. Even if it does not, it is certainly an authoritative document, which Pope Pius expected to be taken most seriously. With the laying on of hands, the consecrating bishop was to say the words of the Preface, “of which,” says the pope, “the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: ‘Fill up in Thy priest the perfection of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty’” (Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica). 

At the end of the document Pope Pius XII states: “We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it...” 

Pope Pius XII’s body had hardly begun “a-mouldering in the grave” when the agents of change began working in earnest to destroy the Catholic faith. Paul VI, once the confidant and trusted friend of Pope Pius XII, had that “audacity to contradict” when he published his own decree in 1968. In vain did Pope Pius XII “teach, declare, and determine” what was required for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders. Paul VI would introduce entirely new words, requiring them for validity, words which were never used for the consecration of a bishop in the Roman Rite: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name” (Pontificalis Romani, June 18, 1968).

As to why Paul VI found it necessary to discard the essential words of the traditional form of consecration and replace them with entirely different words, he says “…it was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer that is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the beginning of the third century.”

Judged appropriate? By whom? None other than Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his associates of the “Consilium,” who invented the Novus Ordo Mass. And who on earth was Hippolytus of Rome? He was an anti-pope of the third century who separated from Rome because of doctrinal differences and established a schismatic church, although he later returned to the Catholic Church and died a martyr. Who knows but that his “Apostolic Tradition” was drawn up for his schismatic sect? 

And whatever became of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis?  The name Sacramentum Ordinis was even given to another document by John Paul II, probably as a red herring to throw us off the track.  

What conclusion does one draw? The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “In our Sacraments… the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null.” We would never tolerate a change in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism. Never! Can we blithely accept a total deviation in the form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a change which omits the part of the traditional form declared essential for validity by Pope Pius XII? I think not! Pope Pius XII changed nothing of the traditional form, but merely designated which part of the form was essential for validity. Paul VI omitted that essential part of the form and replaced it with something entirely new. Not even popes (certainly not would-be popes) can change the form of a Sacrament. Whom do we trust, Pope Pius XII who carefully guarded the traditional sacramental form handed down from ages past, or Paul VI? Paul VI, who on the flimsiest of pretexts changed the essential form of a Sacrament, thus rendering it invalid. The result is that we are left with a whole generation of pseudo-bishops attempting to govern the Church without the grace of office. A miter and a bishop’s ring do not a bishop make. And the Kingdom is brought to desolation (Lk.11:17). 


But even among traditionalists many refuse to consider the possibility of invalid sacramental rites. It’s more convenient to think that if the pope says so it’s got to be OK. But Paul VI told us the Novus Ordo Mass was OK, and look where that has brought us. The day must come when all awaken to the fact that the Church has been brought low by an apostasy more monstrous than we have been willing to admit. Only then will the true bishops emerge, a true pope will restore the hierarchy, and the Church will rise more glorious than ever. “And all mankind shall see the salvation of God” (Lk.3:6).  (Father Louis J. Campbell, "A Kingdom Brought to Desolation (Lk.11:17)," Third Sunday of Lent, March 27, 2011, Saint Jude Shrine, Stafford, Texas.)


Appendix B

Maureen Day on the Doubtful Validity of the Conciliar Rite of Priestly Ordination

A Letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay

(Entire Text below found at Rore Sanctifica. Scroll down for the link.)

Maureen Day, formerly a nun, questions the validity of the New Ordination Rite (NOR) which has been adopted as part of the 'modernisation' of the Catholic Church under Vatican II. Priests entering the modernist (conciliar) church after 1968/9 are ordained under the NOR. Day argues in this letter to Bishop Fellay of the Econe Seminary (Society of Pius X), Switzerland that their validity as Roman Catholic Priests is doubtful.

My Lord Bishop,

On 13 September 1996 will fall the centenary of Pope Leo [X]III's Bull: Apostolicae Curae (13 September 1896). The Bull contains the following pronouncement, intended by Pope Leo to be final and irrevocable, that the Anglican Ordinal is invalid, on account of a Defect of Form. Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, in a letter sent by him on behalf of the Holy See, on 13 July 1985, to ARCIC-II, the letter made public in March 1986, however, stated that the Holy See hoped to declare at some future date, that the Defect of Form of the Anglican Ordinal had by then ceased to exist, and that the Ordinal would be capable of being validly used, from the date of the declaration of the Holy See, onwards. During the period leading up to the aforementioned centenary, debates will doubtless be conducted, as to whether or not it is possible for the Holy See's hopes ever to be realised. In his letter, Cardinal Willebrands stated that one of the factors which had encouraged the Holy See to adopt this hope, was the promulgation, by Pope Paul VI, of new Rites of Ordination. With regard to the New 1968/1989 Priestly Ordination Rite, you stated in an interview granted to the Editor of Catholic, the interview published in the April 1994 issue of the newspaper, that you accept the validity of the Latin version, at any rate, of this Rite. But as you know, some traditional Catholics, clergy and laity, argue for the – at best – doubtful validity of all versions, including the Latin version of this Rite, on account of a Defect of Form. May I give an outline of this argument.

In the first main section of the outline I shall discuss the manner in which Sacramental Forms acquire their signification. In the second main section, I shall list eight of the chief objections to the argument for the doubtful validity of the Rite and shall give a brief reply to each of the objections, in turn. In the third and final main section of the outline, I shall briefly discuss the theological reasons given in the Apostolicae Curae, with regard to the invalidity of Anglican Orders, which reasoning has such an important place, in the argument for the doubtful validity of the New 1968/89 Priestly Ordination Rite. I must ask you to please pardon me if at times I write as if I thought the person I was addressing was in ignorance of the subject matter of my letter, but I have been prompted to write in that manner, only by the difficulty I myself have, in expressing myself clearly on this complicated subject.

Argument for the Doubtful Validity, on account of a Defect of Form, of All Versions of the New 1968/1989 Priestly Ordination Rite

A valid Sacramental Rite is a stable sign of the conferring of the relevant Sacrament. The valid Sacramental Sign inwardly effects that which it outwardly signifies, therefore it is essential for validity that the Sign should definitely signify that which it is meant to inwardly effect. The Matter and Form of the Rite are only two parts of the Rite, which inwardly effect the conferring of the Sacrament, that is to say, they are the only two sacramentally operative, or valid parts of the Rite. Strictly speaking, it is the use of the Matter (for example, the pouring of the water, in Baptism), only, which effects the Sacrament, but being as the Matter of a Rite is usually quite indeterminate in itself, the uttering of the Form is essential, for the supplying of Signification to the Matter. A defective Sacramental Form is one which fails to definitely signify the conferring of the relevant Sacrament. If, then, one is able to assess whether or not the new 1968/1989 Priestly Ordination Rite in all its versions (hereafter to be referred to as the NOR) is possessed of a defect of Form, and is therefore of at best doubtful validity, one must bear in mind the manner in which the Sacramental Form acquires its signification.

The Manner in which a Sacramental Form Acquires its Signification

A Sacramental Form is a group of words: and it is a principle of natural logic, that all groups of words, and all individual words, derive their signification from the contexts in which they are used. The proper context of a Sacramental Form, from which context the Form derives most of its signification, is twofold, and consists of: primarily, the immediate Liturgical Context of the Form, i.e. the additional ceremonial of the Rite, and secondarily the Historical Context of the whole Rite; i.e. the historical circumstances in which the Rite with its form was drafted and developed. The individual words of a Form are able to derive some signification from each other, and therefore, the wording of the Form is governed by the aforementioned principle. For the sake of neatness of expression, it can be said that the wording of a Form constitutes a part of the Liturgical Context of the Form. The principle has become known to theologians (i.e. to those theologians who have studied its application to Ordination Forms) as the principle of determinatio ex adjunctis, or signifcatio ex adjunctis.

It is, then, an inescapable fact of logic, that all Forms, for all the Seven Sacraments, are governed by the principle of determinatio ex adjunctis: any and every Form logically derives its signification – whether this be of sacramental validity, doubtful sacramental validity, or sacramental invalidity – from its Liturgical Historical Context, its wording being held to be part of its Liturgical Context. With regard to five of the Seven Sacraments- namely, Baptism, Penance, Confirmation, Holy Matrimony and Extreme Unction – the traditional Church has ruled, for a just reason, that in each case the sacrament will be valid, even if the Matter and Form, only, are used, and not the additional ceremonial of the Rite. It is therefore clear that, in these five cases, the additional ceremonial (or in other words, the Liturgical Context of the Form, exclusive, in these cases, of the Form's wording) is definitely not required for the supplying of valid signification to the Form. But, in these five cases, the traditional Church's ruling constitutes an authoritative Historical Context, which supplies a permanent, valid signification to the Form. The principle of determinatio ex adjunctis therefore does apply to the forms of the five aforementioned Sacraments, no less than to the Forms of the other two Sacraments.
A Stable Sign

In order to be valid, a Sacramental Form must be a stable sign of the conferring of the Sacrament: it must signify exactly the same thing today, as it signified yesterday, or a thousand years ago. In order that the Form will be valid, the Liturgical/Historical Context which supplies it with its signification must also, therefore, be in a stable condition. In practice, a valid traditional Ordination Rite retains its character of being a stable sign, by the following process: although ceremonies are, from time to time, over the centuries, added to the Rite, ceremonies which have been added to it, are never at any time suffered to be omitted from it. This fact is mentioned in the Letter of Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, addressed to the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, to the Anglican Bishops, and dated 29 December 1897:

"The modern (pre-1968) Roman Pontifical contains all that was in the earlier Pontificals... and the later books omit nothing that was in the older. Thus the modern form of ordination differs neither in word nor in ceremony from that which was used by the ancient Fathers."

(The deliberate omission from a valid traditional Ordination Rite, of ceremonial which traditionally forms a part of that Rite, must needs be of grave significance, with regard to the supplying of determination to the Form. One might also note here, with regard to ceremonial which is added to a valid Rite for any of the Seven Sacraments, that it is possible for such added ceremonial to be, in reality, an extension of the Matter and Form, which extension could change the meaning signified by the Matter and Form.)

Valid Ordination Rites, in the Early Days of the Church

The valid Ordination Rites which were actually in use, in the early days of the Church, provide an illustration of how the principle of determinatio ex adjunctis applies to Sacramental Forms. With regard to these early Rites: the wording of the Form usually contained virtually no expression of the conferring of the valid Christian Priesthood (to our modern understanding); and the Rite as a whole usually contained virtually no additional ceremonial. But the conformity of the Rite with the traditional liturgical practices of that time, and, if the Rite was a Catholic one, the acceptance of its validity by the Catholic Church, will have constituted an Historical Context which will have imparted the required valid signification to the Form.
The Abyssinian Ordination Case

I shall conclude this discussion on the manner in which a Sacramental Form acquires its signification, with a comment on a particular, relevant case – the nineteenth century Abyssinian Ordination Case. Some time before 1704, a schismatical Abyssinian Abuna, or Archbishop, ordained some thousands of candidates to the Priesthood – during one afternoon's ceremony. The Abuna passed rapidly along the lines of ordinands, pausing in front of each man, only long enough to impose his hands upon him and to utter over him the impromptu Form, "Accipe Spirite Sanctum." (The Abuna had apparently learnt this phrase from some Catholic missionaries who had been visiting his country.) In 1704, some of these Abyssinian Priests, who had by then converted to Catholicism, asked the Holy See to rule on whether or not their ordinations by the Abuna had been valid. In 1873, in England, some Anglicans heard about this case, and gained the impression that the Holy See's ruling in 1704 had been, that the Abyssinian's ordinations were valid. As it happens, all the Forms (for the Episcopate, Priesthood, and Diaconate) of the Anglican Ordinal commence with the phrase: "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum." The Anglicans then began claiming that the Holy See ought to declare the Anglican Ordinal to be valid, on the same, sole grounds on which it had, these Anglicans believed, declared the Abyssinian ordinations to be valid, namely, the use of the Form "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum." Cardinal H. E. Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, then asked the Holy Office, in a letter dated 24 August 1874, to give a ruling on the claim made by the Anglicans.

The Holy Office thereupon consulted its archives and ascertained that the ruling of 1704 had actually been recorded as "Dilata ad mentem" – i.e. case held over, and not approved by the Pope. The precise point of doubt, in 1704, had apparently been in the careless manner in which the Abuna had pronounced the new Form over the individual ordinand. The Holy Office then asked a Father Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, S.J. a Holy Office Consultor, to prepare a Votum (a Reply), in connection with Cardinal Manning's request. Father Franzelin delivered his prepared Votum to the Holy Office on 25 February 1875, and the document was favourably received. It included, in effect, this proposition: The phrase "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" fails, in itself, to signify the conferring of any Holy Order; and set within the Anglican ordinal, the phrase acquires a determination, indeed, but a positively invalid one. The Holy See was to make full, favourable use of this proposition, twenty years later, when Apostolicae Curae was being drafted. But in 1875, the Holy Office contented itself with replying to Cardinal Manning, as follows. Cardinal C. Patrizi wrote, on behalf of the Holy Office, to Cardinal Manning, on 30 April 1875, and the letter contained the following points. Firstly, contrary to what some Anglicans were then asserting, the Holy Office had never declared, either explicitly or implicitly, that the Imposition of Hands joined to these words only, "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" suffices for the validity of the Priestly Order. Secondly, with regard to the Abyssinian ordinations, if the Holy Office had, in 1704, declared these same to be valid (which it actually had not), this would have been, in principle, because the Abuna, during the afternoon's ceremony, had performed (at least once) the entire, valid Coptic (Abyssinian) Priestly Ordination Rite, and this performance imparted a valid determination to the new form, "Accipe Spiritum Sancte."
Eight Objections to the Argument for the Doubtful Validity of the NOR, with Replies to the Objections

I now come to the second main section of this outline, of the argument for the doubtful validity, on account of a Defect of Form, of the NOR. This section will consist of eight of the objections which are made to the argument, with a reply to each of the eight in turn. But to begin with a summary of the argument, itself. The form of the NOR ("NOR" referring to each and every version including the Latin version, of the New 1968/1989 Priestly Ordination Rite) is possessed of at best doubtful valid signification, or determination, which same it acquires from these sources:

1. The wording of the Form (i.e. the omissions from and alterations to the pre-1968 Form;

2. The additional ceremonial of the NOR, or the immediate Liturgical Context of the Form of this Rite (i.e. all the omissions from, and alterations to, the pre-1968 additional ceremonial); and

3. The historical circumstances in which the NOR has been drafted, revised, and ratified, with particular reference to the motives – ecumenical and otherwise highly un-Catholic – of those responsible for the Rite, or the Historical Context of the NOR. (One might note, here, with regard to the celebration of this or that Rite of Mass, within which celebration, ordinations are carried out, that this celebration would constitute what might be termed a remote Liturgical Context for the relevant Ordination Form. The celebration of the particular Rite of Mass, would play its own part, in the imparting of the determination to the Ordination Form.)

Objection 1. The omission of the conjunction "ut" from the Form of the Latin version of the NOR, is too indeterminate to bring about a change in the doctrinal meaning of the Form.

Reply. Even if it is conceded that the relevant omission brings about no doctrinal change (and not all would concede this), the fact remains that any wilful change in the wording of a Catholic (as opposed to a non-Catholic Christian) Sacramental Form, introduces an at least practical doubt, as to the signification attached to the Form. To quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Chapter on the Sacraments:

"In... the Sacraments of the New Law... the Form is so definite, that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the sacrament null; and it is therefore expressed in the clearest terms, and such as exclude the possibility of doubt..."

Objection 2. The conjuction "ut" is not found in the relevant Form, in the original Latin text of the 7th century Leonine Sacramentary. Michael Davies, in his book The Order of Melchisedech: A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood published in 1993, points out (on page 238) that the omission of the "ut" from the Form of the NOR, constitutes a "restoration" of the Priestly Ordination Form to the condition it is in the Leonine Sacramentary.

Reply. Concerning Objection 2, the exact status of the Leonine Sacramentary must be examined. Mgr. L. Duchesne, in his book Christian Worship, published 1949, states (on pages 135-144) that the Leonine Sacramentary is a huge private compilation, put together in a disorderly manner, with a vast amount of superfluous matter, with mutilations in the compilation. Andrew Fortescue, in his book The Mass published 1955, describes the Leonine Sacramentary in the same way as the aforementioned author, and also comments (on page 118 of his book) that the Leonine Sacramentary "is not a book drawn from liturgical use." In the Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1910 edition, Volume IX, in the article on Liturgical Books, page 297, it is stated that only one manuscript copy of the Leonine Sacramentary is known, and also that this Sacramentary "is not a book compiled for use at the altar – the hopeless confusion of its parts showing this." But even if it were to be established that the Leonine Sacramentary was in official use, in the 7th Century, that which sufficed for valid signification in the 7th century, would not necessarily thus suffice, at this our own time, because today, the intervening thirteen centuries of liturgical development have to be taken into account, with regard to valid signification. The clear purpose of the modern omission of the "ut", is that the omission is a wilful introduction of one element of de-stabilisation, into one of the two most sacred, and most strictly established (in the canonical sphere) parts of the Priestly Ordination Rite.

Objection 3. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in the Chapter on the Sacraments, states:

"To (the Matter and Form)... are added certain ceremonies... If at any time... (these) be omitted, the Sacrament is not thereby invalidated, since the ceremonies do not pertain to its essence."

Reply. In order to establish the significance of the above text, in relation to the question of whether or not the NOR is valid, one must first ascertain what exactly the original drafters and authorisers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent intended the text to mean. One will therefore have to first view the text within the context, of that stage of doctrinal understanding and of liturgical development, which the Church had reached, in the sixteenth century, when the Catechism was first produced. In this connection one will need to note, that in practice, in the sixteenth century, the Church had never omitted additional ceremonial from Ordination Rites. One will secondly need to bear in mind, that one should seek for the true answer to any Catholic question, not by stabbing at this or that text and perhaps taking the same out of context, but by taking into account the whole of relevant, understood Catholic truth, and Catholic practice, and by making sure that the answer one arrives at is not in any degree opposed to these same.

Objection 4. Pope Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (30 November 1947) teaches, at least implicitly, concerning the modern pre-1968 Priestly Ordination Rite, that the additional ceremonial found in this Rite is not required to supply valid signification to the Form, and that consequently, with the exception of the first Imposition of Hands and the essential words of the Form, the omission of everything found in the Rite, although forbidden, would not result in the invalid administration of the Sacrament.

Reply. With regard to the modern pre-1968 Priestly Ordination Rite, Pope Pius XII, in Sacramentum Ordinis, did not teach, but decreed (i.e. decided), that from November 1947 onwards, at any rate, the Preface Prayer would be the sole Form, and a particular part, only, of that sole Form would be sacramentally operative (i.e. valid, essential). Concerning this Pope's intention in enacting this decree, Fr. John Bligh, S.J., in his book Ordination to the Priesthood published in 1955 states (on page 55):

"Its [the decree's] purpose was practical: to put an end to scruples about the validity of Orders received by priests who felt that some possibly essential (i.e. sacramentally operative) part of the long and complicated Rite had not been properly performed in their cases."

Pope Pius XII taught nothing and decreed nothing in Sacramentum Ordinis, concerning whether or not the additional ceremonial of the relevant Rite supplies valid signification to the Form, unless such a lesson is to be seen, in the absolute command, stated in Sacramentum Ordinis, that nothing in the Rite is to be omitted or neglected, even in the slightest detail. One might also note here, with regard to the modern pre-1968 Priestly Ordination Rite, that in accordance with Pope Pius XII's own decree, a particular section of the Preface Prayer is, although "non-essential", a part of the sole Sacramental Form, and that it is therefore logical to assume that this section of the prayer plays its own part in the supplying of valid signification to the essential part of the Form.

Objection 5. The Church has not pronounced that the determinatio ex adjunctis principle apples to the Sacramental Forms.

Reply. The truth about a proposition, which truth the Church has not pronounced on, is to be sought for in all that is implied, concerning the proposition, in all traditional doctrine and religious practice.

Objection 6. Concerning the condition of the NOR, the following facts have to be conceded. The additional ceremonial of the Rite fails to supply valid signification to the verbally mutilated Form, and the highly un-Catholic motives of some of the original drafters of the Rite form a historical setting, which likewise does nothing to supply valid determination. The NOR as a whole therefore fails, in itself, to signify the valid conferring of the Christian Priesthood. Furthermore, the condition of the NOR, thus far, bears a striking resemblance to the state of the Anglican Ordinal, which state forms the grounds of Pope Leo XIII's theological argument, expounded in Apostolicae Curae, for the invalidity of the Ordinal. But the saving feature of the NOR, with regard to valid signification, is as follows. The unquestionably orthodox teachings of Vatican II, and of Pope Paul VI, the promulgator of the NOR, on the Sacred Ministry and the Eucharist, constitute an over-arching, authoritative Historical Context for the NOR, which context does supply the Rite with the required valid signification. The aforementioned defence of the validity of the NOR, together with the admissions concerning the deficiencies of the Rite, had been publicly promoted by a Dr. Francis Clark, an English Catholic theologian, who had been described by Michael Davies (in The Order of Melchisedech, page xx) as being "certainly one of the greatest of all living authorities on the Sacrament of Order." Michael Davies, himself, has also publicly promoted the aforementioned defence of the validity of the NOR.

Reply. To begin with, it must be remembered that the immediate Liturgical Context of a Sacramental (i.e. the additional ceremonial of the Rite) is the primary outside context of the Form, and had a prior Right, so to speak, over all other outside contexts, to determine the meaning of the Form. If the wording and the Liturgical Context of a Form impart to it a particular determination, a context which is outside the Rite (i.e. an Historical Context) logically cannot superimpose a conflicting determination on the Rite and Form. All this is a matter of natural logic. The failure of the NOR, in itself, to signify the conferring of the valid Christian Priesthood is not necessarily of a negative, as opposed to a positive, nature, only, grave enough though a negative such failure, only, would be in connection with validity. The relevant teachings of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, assuming that they are unquestionably orthodox, constitute a relatively remote Historical Context for the NOR and its Form. The suggestion would seem to be absurd, concerning the person who holds the ultimate moral responsibility for the inventing and imposing of the NOR, that the alleged authority of this very same person, is the sole guarantee of the validity claimed for the NOR. The Catholic Church does have the last word, as to whether or not any Sacramental Rite is valid, but when the Church truly exercises her authority, in having the last word, she does not, in so doing, go against right reason, traditional religious practice, and true doctrine. With regard to Dr Francis Clark, he has, indeed, published some excellent theses on the conditions for the validity of Ordination Rites, but these works were published by him in pre-Vatican II days, at which time, he was Father Francis Clark, S.J. Since then he has, if I am not mistaken, relinquished the practise of the Priesthood and his membership of the Jesuit Order. It is perhaps hardly suprising, therefore, that with his personal status, Dr Clark should find it fitting to demand that this or that one of the New Sacramental Rites should be accepted as valid.

Objection 7. (a) Michael Davies, in his book The Order of Melchisedech, states (on pages 232-235) that: the doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Church requires the Catholic to believe that the Latin Typical Edition, at least, of the New 1968 Priestly Ordination Rite, as promulgated by Pope Paul VI is, despite its otherwise admittedly "deplorable" condition, unquestionably valid. (b) Furthermore, it is pointless to question the validity of the NOR, on the grounds that this Rite is not in conformity with the pre-1968 Rite, because the NOR is not intended to be in conformity with the pre-1968 Rite. The NOR is intended to be a brand new Rite, promulgated by the Church in the exercise of her supreme authority, and therefore beyond all doubt valid.

Reply. (a) The true Church (the Church being the union of all the true Faithful, under the Headship of Jesus Christ) is, indeed, indefectible, in that it is essentially immutable, in its teaching, its constitution, and its Sacred Liturgy. But the individual Pope is not indefectible. The individual Pope has a duty to preserve the Priestly Ordination Rite from any invalidating or possibly invalidating defect, and he will fulfil that duty, only by acting in the same way that the Church itself, traditionally acts, in order to thus preserve the Rite. Pope Paul VI chose not to fulfil that duty. (b) The Catholic Church does not have novel Sacramental Rites. She has never had any cause to have such. An absolutely novel Sacramental Rite would be, in any case, devoid of the stability of signification which is an essential characteristic of the valid Sacramental Rite. It is relevant to remember, here, that, as Saint Augustine of Hippo pointed out, the Catholic Church is the custodian of the Sacraments, but she does not own them – Almighty God owns them.

Objection 8. The following is an extract from the section of Apostolicae Curae, which contains the theological argument for the Defect of Form of the Anglican Ordinal.

"In the Rite for the administration of any Sacrament a distinction is justly made, between its 'ceremonial' and its 'essential' part, the latter being usually called its 'Matter and 'Form'. Moreover it is well known that the Sacraments... must... signify the grace which they cause... Now this signification, though it must be found in the essential Rite as a whole, that is, in both Matter and Form together, belongs chiefly to the Form."

(Apostolicae Curae, section 24, C.T.S. edition.) This extract implies that the signification of a Form is necessarily confined strictly within the wording of the Form.

Reply. At the time when Apostolicae Curae was being drafted, in Rome, a minority of theologians who were associated with the drafting, held the opinion, that the signification of a Form is, indeed, strictly confined within the wording of the Form. But the majority of those theologians, including Cardinal Pietro Gasparri and A. Lehmkuhl, held the opposing opinion, that an Ordination Form is able, in principle, to derive signification from its Liturgical/Historical Context. (As I have mentioned, earlier on in this letter, Father J. B. Franzelin, S.J. had addressed the Holy Office, on the subject of applying the determinatio ex adjunctis principle to Ordination Forms, in 1875, in connection with the Abyssinian Ordination Case.) Pope Leo XIII decided that the text of Apostolicae Curae would contain no explicit pronouncement on which of the two opposing opinions is true, but that each of the two opposing opinions would be given a fair chance, so to speak, to demonstrate its own worth, in practice within the context of Apostolicae Curae. The extract from the Bull given in the above Objection 8, might therefore be described as being a polite nod of the head, so to speak, in the direction of the aforementioned minority opinion. It should be noted, however, that the relevant extract does not specifically deny the possibility of implicit signification by a Form (implicit signification, as possessed by a Form, being signification supplied ex adjunctis). With regard to the demonstration of its own worth, given, in the text of Apostolicae Curae, by the aforementioned majority opinion, I shall comment on this same, in the concluding section of this letter. It might be noted, here, that during the time that Apostolicae Curae was being drafted, some Anglicans and even some Catholics, were actually using the determinatio ex adjunctis principle, to argue for the validity of the Anglican Ordinal; so there was no sense in which Pope Leo XIII could have afforded to ignore this principle, in his assessment of whether or not the Ordinal was valid.

The Theological Argument in Apostolicae Curae for the Invalidity of Anglican Orders

I now come to the third and final main section of this outline, of the case for the doubtful validity of the NOR. This section will consist of a discussion of the theological argument presented by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae, for the invalidity of Anglican Orders, being as the argument is of such great importance to the aforementioned case. According, then, to the aforementioned argument, there are two invalidating defects of Anglican Orders: a defect of Form; and a Defect of Intention. I shall first discuss the Defect of Form.
The Defect of Form of the Anglican Ordinal

Of the two invalidating defects of Anglican Orders, a Defect of Form is the most important one. This defect of Form is the sole invalidating defect of the Anglican Ordinal. All the enquiries made in Apostolicae Curae, about the condition of the entire Ordinal, and even about the designs of the compilers of the Ordinal, have reference to the question of whether or not the Forms are valid. All the deficiencies discovered in the entire Ordinal, together with the discovered unacceptableness of the designs of the compilers, according as these same are referred to, in Apostolicae Curae, argue to the Defect of Form. The suggestion has been made, that the reason why the entire Ordinal is, according to Apostolicae Curae, involved in the Defect of Form, is that Pope Leo searched the entire text of the Ordinal, for a possible, infinite number of valid Ordination Forms. But this suggestion has been dismissed by one orthodox theologian, as being absurd. The reality of the Defect of Form of the Anglican Ordinal may be summarised under four successive points, as I shall do, below.

1. With regard to the Forms of the Ordinal, both the "official" Forms, and one or two other prayers, about which it has been suggested that they could theoretically serve as valid Forms: the wording of all these Forms fails, in itself, to signify the conferring of valid Holy Orders. 2. The Ordinal as a whole, it having been deliberately stripped of everything which, in the traditional Roman Pontificial, sets forth the conferring of valid Holy Orders, fails, in its turn, to supply the Forms with the required valid determination. Furthermore, the clearly manifested intentions of the compilers of the Ordinal – Thomas Cranmer and his associates – not to produce a valid Ordinal, have imparted a positively invalid determination to the Ordinal and its Forms. 3. The invalidity of the Ordinal is permanent, because of the invalid "native character and spirit" (Apostolicae Curae, section 31, C.T.S. edition) possessed by the Ordinal. This point means that the Ordinal was, so to speak, born invalid, of its very nature, and therefore could not have validity superimposed upon it, at any later date. This point is important in view of the hope expressed by the Holy See, that the Ordinal might one day be declared by the Holy See to have become valid. 4. Apostolicae Curae contains several references to the fact that certain prayers or phrases in the Ordinal, could possibly be held to suffice as Valid Ordination Forms, if they were set in a fitting Liturgical Historical Context. For example, it is stated that the prayer in the Ordinal, commencing 'Almighty God giver of all good things' could conceivably suffice as a valid Ordination Form, if it were set in a Catholic Rite which the Church had approved. (Apostolicae Curae, section 32 C.T.S. edition.) Again, it is stated that the phrase in the Ordinal, 'for the office and works of the Bishop', "must be judged otherwise than in a Catholic Rite" (Apostolicae Curae, section 28, C.T.S. edition). Yet again, it is stated that some words in the Ordinal "cannot bear the same sense as they have in a Catholic Rite," and that

"once a new Rite had been introduced, denying or corrupting the Sacrament of Order and repudiating any notion whatsoever of consecration and sacrifice, then the formula 'Receive the Holy Ghost'... is deprived of its force; nor have the words, 'for the office and work of a priest', or 'bishop', etc., any longer their validity, being now mere names voided of the reality which Christ instituted."

(Apostolicae Curae, section 31, C.T.S. edition.) This point is of the utmost importance to the case for the doubtful validity of the NOR. (It is of interest to note, from the aforementioned quotations taken from Apostolicae Curae, that the inclusion of the word 'priest' in a Priestly Ordination Form by no means necessarily renders the Form valid, because there are many different types of priest in the world.)

With regard to the argument in Apostolicae Curae for the invalidity of the Anglican ordinal, an English theologian has commented, that although Anglicans have attempted for the last hundred years, to refute the argument, this same has remained theologically unassailable. This argument has remained theologically unassailable because it is founded upon and makes full use of the logical fact, that the principle of determinatio ex adjunctis applies to Sacramental Form. If the Catholic Church were to deny this logical fact, it would thereby render itself unable to demonstrate the invalidity of the Anglican Ordination Forms. Being as a non-Catholic Ordination Form need not, for validity, have the same wording as the corresponding Catholic Ordination Form, the denial of the aforementioned logical fact, would render the task of demonstrating either the validity or the invalidity of the non-Catholic Ordination Form, utterly impossible.
The Defect of Intention of Anglican Orders

I now come to the second of the two invalidating defects of Anglican Orders, as pronounced upon by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae: a Defect of Intention. This defect concerns the originators of the invalid Anglican Episcopal line, and in particular, the consecrators, in 1559, of Matthew Parker, the first-ever Anglican pseudo-Archbishop of Canterbury, and founder of the Anglican Succession. Pope Leo judged that these originators had had incorrect Ministerial Intentions, in starting off the Anglican episcopal line, because they had used the invalid Anglican Ordinal with which to start it off. Of the two invalidating defects of Anglican Orders – Defect of Form and Defect of Intention – the latter defect is therefore less important than the former one, because the latter depends for its existence upon the former.

Some people hold the view, that the Defect of Intention of Anglican Orders consists of the intention of Thomas Cranmer and his associates to produce an invalid ordinal, objectively expressed in the Anglican Ordinal, and which intention, thus expressed, may be termed the invalid 'objective intention of the Rite' ('Rite' here referring to the Ordinal). According to this view, the outward expression of the Ordinal, of the invalid 'objective intention of the Rite' is found in the additional ceremonial. According to this view, there are therefore two separate invalidating defects within the Anglican Ordinal – a Defect of Form; and a defective or invalid 'objective intention to the Rite', which is expressed in the additional ceremonial. This view assists those who hold it, to avoid having to admit – since they would not wish to make this admission – that there is a connection, with regard to the validity, between the Forms and the additional ceremonial of the Ordinal. To reply to this view. According to the Catholic Church, only two parts of the Sacramental Rite are capable of being sacramentally operative, or valid: the Matter and the Form. No other part of the Rite is therefore able to have any invalidating defect. With regard to all Sacramental Rites, the 'objective intention of the Rite' essentially is the Matter and Form; and the outward expression of this intention constitutes signification, which signification, regardless of where in the Rite it is located, argues to the validity or invalidity of the (Matter and) Form. With regard to that section of Apostolicae Curae which deals with the Defect of Intention of Anglican Orders (section 33, C.T.S. edition), the terminology used, is that which is traditionally used by the Catholic Church with reference to Ministerial Intention, and there is no actual doubt that it is Ministerial Intention which is being referred to, in this section of the Bull.

Some people might think, that the originators of the invalid Anglican episcopal line, were the same persons as the producers of the invalid Anglican Ordinal. These people might go on to think, that Apostolicae Curae is stating, that the additional ceremonial of the Ordinal, with all its indications of invalidity, is accounted for as being the result of, and an outward expression of, the incorrect Ministerial Intentions of the aforementioned originators, and that there is therefore no need to accept that there is any connection between the additional ceremonial and the Forms, in respect of validity. This view would be entirely false. Even if the originators of the Anglican episcopal line had produced the Anglican Ordinal, and even if they had invented it, while they were in the very act of originating the Anglican episcopal line, it would still be necessary, in principle, to distinguish between the intention to produce an invalid ordinal, which is outwardly expressed in the Anglican Ordinal, itself (and particularly in the additional ceremonial) and which argues to the Defect of Form, and the Ministerial Intentions to invalidly consecrate Bishops and thus originate the invalid Anglican episcopal line, which Intentions are indicated in the use, made by the originators, of the invalid Anglican Ordinal.

The terminology used in Apostolicae Curae to describe the two invalidating defects of Anglican Orders, is not extremely easy to follow, and this and one or two other factors cause some Catholics to mix up the two defects and so misunderstand both. Among the published works which provide corroboration, of the explanation of the two defects which I have given above, are the following: The Anglican Ministry, by A. W. Hutton, Preface by Cardinal Newman, published 1879; The Reformation, the Mass and the Priesthood, Volume 2, by Fr. E. C. Messenger, Ph.D. (Louvain), published 1936; Anglican Orders, by Fr. A. A. Stephenson, S.J., published by Fr. F. Clark, S.J., Rome, 1958; and The New Ordination Rite: Purging the Priesthood in the Conciliar Church, by Fr. W. Jenkins, published 1981.

I have now reached the end of my outline of the argument for the, at best, doubtful validity on account of a Defect of Form, of the NOR. I therefore now come to the conclusion of this letter. May I begin my conclusion to referring, again, to the interview you gave, which was published in the April 1994 issue of Catholic. You stated in the interview that there are numerous cases in which all the Seven Sacraments are certainly invalid, when conferred with the new Rites; and your words implied, if I have understood them correctly, that in every one of these cases the invalidity is caused solely by an incorrect Ministerial Intention, this same being indicated, in every case, by the use of by the minister of what you termed "fantasy", during the ceremony. When asked by the interviewer specifically what one should look for, in modern ordination cases, in respect of validity or invalidity, you stated: "The intention (i.e. the Ministerial Intention) is objectively expressed in the way the ceremony is performed; so where there is fantasy, you may seriously question the validity (i.e. of the Sacrament as opposed to the Rite)." To comment on these statements. With regard to the conferring of any of the Seven Sacraments, one must establish what is the correct relationship between the Ministerial Intention, and the Rite, itself. The use, by the minister, of a certain prayer or ceremony, on a particular occasion, gives some indication of what the Ministerial Intention probably is, but the prayer or ceremony, in itself, logically forms a part of the Rite, and therefore helps to determine the meaning of the Form, and argues to the sacramental effectiveness or defectiveness of the Form. In accordance with the logical principle of determinatio ex adjunctis, a Fantasy Ordination Rite would be, in itself, a doubtfully valid Rite, even if the wording of the Form were faultless. The factor of Ministerial Intention in particular cases is of relatively minor importance, and should not be allowed to obscure the major question of whether or not the NOR and other New Sacramental Rites are definitely valid. The latter question is no less grave and no less public an issue, as are the issues of Religious Liberty, multi-faithism, and the inversion of the true primary and secondary ends of marriage.

May I now refer, again, to the Letter of Cardinal Willebrands, expressing the hope now held by the Holy See, that is – the Holy see – might one day be able to declare that the Anglican Ordinal had become valid. According to the Willebrands Letter, the factor which would possibly bring about this validation, would be a formal statement by the Anglican Communion, to the effect that it held the same beliefs, concerning the Eucharist and the ordained ministry, as are held by the Catholic Church. What is here implied, is that a formal statement of the aforementioned nature by the Anglican Communion, might be said to constitute an over-arching, over-riding Historical Context for the Anglican Ordinal, which context would supply the required valid signification to its Forms. As an echo of a statement in the Willebrands letter (which statement I have referred to in the opening paragraph of this my letter), in a letter published in the 17 June 1995 issue of The Tablet, a professor R. W. Franklin, Chairman of the Anglican Orders Conference, at the General Theological Seminary, New York, U.S.A., asserted: "The Roman reform of the Ritual of Ordination... has narrowed the gap between the Anglican Ordinal and the Roman Pontificial." Indeed, the New Catholic Ordination Rites have, in a certain false sense, narrowed the unbridgeable gulf between the absolutely and permanently invalid, and the valid, only because so many thousands of Catholics blindly go along with the idea, that with regard to Sacramental Rites (as also with doctrinal definitions), words can be said to bear any meaning that one wishes to place on them. If the Holy See were to declare that the Anglican Ordinal had become capable of being validly used, you would protest against the declaration, but you would, to date, have no logical argument to offer, in support of your own protest. If the Latin Version of the New 1968/1989 Priestly Ordination Rite is definitely valid, as you now say that it is, stability of signification is not a requirement for the validity of a Sacramental Rite, and the Catholic Church is able, in principle, to declare that not only the Anglican Ordinal, but any Rite, is valid. If the NOR is definitely valid, anything is, in principle, definitely valid, provided that a sufficient number of people can be bullied or lured into accepting that it is definitely valid, and therefore, in reality, nothing is definitely valid.

A traditional short formula of the conditions for a valid Sacramental Rite, is: Matter, Form and Intention. I suggest that the present situation calls for the extending of this formula to: Matter, Form and Liturgical/Historical Context, and Ministerial Intention (as distinct from the 'objective intention of the Rite'). I am asking you to study and think about the argument for the doubtful validity of the NOR. I am asking you to study this argument, not only to the extent that it concerns the working of the various versions of the Form, but also to the extent that it concerns the applying of the determinatio ex adjunctis principle to the Sacramental Forms. May I suggest that you could make a public announcement, to the effect that all educated Catholics ought to seriously consider whether or not the NOR and the other New Sacramental Rites are definitely valid.

I hope you will pardon the lengthiness of this letter. However, I could have made it much longer, by examining the ceremonies of the NOR, in detail, and giving more illustrations and references, in support of my argument, all of which would have strengthened my case. I apologise for the dogmatic tone in which I have addressed you, but the subject matter of this letter and its seriousness have made it difficult for me to do otherwise. I am trusting that your goodness will cause you not to take offence at this letter.

I have the honour to be,
Your lordship's devoted and obedient servant,

Maureen Day
December 1995





© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.