Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                       July 6, 2006

Just Stay in a State of Sanctifying Grace

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The "world" is in a tizzy because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (that is, Communist North Korea) launched ten or so missiles that landed in the Sea of Japan. Some policy wonks are urging a preemptive strike against North Korea to stop the madness of its dictator, Kim Jong Il, the son of the Stalinist reprobate named Kim Il Sung, who died in 1994. Others are urging "negotiations" to bring North Korea into the "family of nations," believing that Kim Jong Il is flexing his country's putrid "might" in order to extort economic assistance from the United States of America and Japan to subsidize a national economy that has focused on a needless military build-up while the people of the prison known as North Korea live in stark poverty and desolation. One way or the other, however, "world" leaders, including the Russians and the Red Chinese, will determine a course of action that will be produce "peace" in a peninsula that has been under siege since the Japanese invaded it in 1910.

The situation in the Korean Peninsula is analogous to that in the Middle East. Western policy-makers keep devising "peace plans" to bring warring parties together, never understanding that there is only one peace plan, Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan, that can soothe the ravages of fallen human nature and lead men to an era wherein true peace, that of Christ the King, will win over individual men and their nations during the Reign of Mary Immaculate. Undaunted by their repeated failures, produced as a result of the fallacious belief that men can "devise" peace on their own accord with submitting themselves to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, leaders of nations and representatives of nations in international organizations, such as the United Nations, fulminate about this or that crisis, seeking to find ways to defuse a crisis that ignites all over again in a relatively short period of time. If you will forgive the comparison, the effort of making "peace plans" to end various crises is somewhat akin to Arthur Stanley Jefferson, aka Stan Laurel, pushing in one drawer into a chest of drawers before being hit in the chest or the jaw or the legs by another drawer immediately thereafter.

There have been almost as many "plans" to stop North Korea's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons systems as there have been "plans" to produce peace in the Middle East. It was but a scant twelve years ago that many observers believed that Jimmy Appeaser, er, James Earl Carter, Jr., had reached an "understanding" with the North Korea oligarchy that would halt its nascent nuclear weapons program. As always, Carter's grandiose image of himself as a "peacemaker" was founded in self-delusion, reflected in this bit of pompous self-congratulations found on the website of The Carter Center:

President Carter met with South Korean leaders and North Korean President Kim Il Sung (above) in June 1994, paving the way for an accord to ease international fears about a possible North Korean nuclear threat.

Building on the resumption of talks brokered in June by former President Jimmy Carter, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement this fall that was a major step toward ending 40 years of hostility and easing international fears about a possible nuclear buildup in the North.

In announcing the pact, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Bob Gallucci thanked President Carter for restarting the negotiations that led to the October agreement. "President Carter played a key role," he said, in averting sanctions and in reopening the dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang.

President and Mrs. Carter visited North Korea in June at the invitation of then-President Kim Il Sung as private citizens representing The Carter Center. The Center had maintained an active dialogue with the governments of both North and South Korea, and the Carters made the trip in hope of encouraging a renewed dialogue between Pyongyang and the West.

The United States and other countries had long suspected that the North was trying to build nuclear weapons, and over the summer, those fears began to mount. The day before the Carters arrived in Pyongyang, the North Korean government withdrew its membership from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and threatened to expel IAEA inspectors. The Clinton administration began pushing for U.N. sanctions against the North. With no means of direct communication, some began to fear the two countries were heading toward war.

The Carters had been invited to North Korea several times since 1991, and in the face of heightening tensions, that invitation was renewed.

"After I talked to President Clinton, we agreed that Bob Gallucci would brief me on the situation. After that meeting, I told President Clinton I would like to accept the North's invitation," President Carter said. "I was very pleased when he approved my trip."

On June 16, the Carters, accompanied by Carter Center Director of Programs Marion Creekmore, became the first people to cross the demilitarized zone from South Korea to the North and then North to South since the two were divided following the Korean War.

After two days of talks, President Carter broke the nuclear impasse when President Kim agreed to freeze his country's nuclear program in exchange for the resumption of his dialogue with the United States. As a gesture of good will, he also promised to allow joint U.S.-North Korean teams to search for and recover the remains of American soldiers killed in the Korean War.

The Clinton administration received diplomatic confirmation of President Kim's commitments just days after President Carter returned home. "President Carter was very faithful in articulating the policy of our government," President Clinton said. "He provided a forum in which the North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, could respond the way he did. And I'm very pleased about it."

President Clinton called the Carter trip "the beginning of a new stage in our efforts to pursue a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula. We hope this will lead to the resolution of all the issues that divide Korea from the international community."

The talks between the U.S. government and Pyongyang continued after the death of Kim Il Sung in June. The signing of a U.S.-North Korean agreement reached in Geneva on Oct. 21 included provisions that North Korea will neither restart its existing nuclear plant nor reprocess the reactor's spent fuel rods, which could be used to produce weapons- grade plutonium. Construction of two larger plants has been halted, and all three will be dismantled and replaced by light-water reactors. International inspectors are again monitoring the North's nuclear program.

"The Geneva talks confirmed all of Kim Il Sung's promises to President Carter. Our hope is that the Carters' trip will mark the establishment of diplomatic and cultural ties with the West for this long-isolated Communist nation," Dr. Creekmore said.

After leaving North Korea, President Carter carried a message from President Kim Il Sung to South Korean President Kim Young Sam requesting a summit between both countries. The South Korean leader accepted the invitation that would mark the first meeting between top leaders of both countries since the Korean Peninsula was divided in 1953. The summit, which was scheduled to begin in July, was postponed following Kim Il Sung's death. "I hope that the time may be soon be right for this meeting, and I stand ready to assist in any way deemed appropriate by both sides," President Carter said.

The North Korean ambassador to the United Nations, Pak Gil Yon, recently traveled to The Carter Center to present President Carter with the original signed letter that Kim Il Sung had faxed to him confirming the agreements the two had made in June. The letter was the last one President Kim wrote to an individual outside his country before his death, and it was given to President Carter as a token of the North's appreciation for his role in reopening talks.

President Carter met with the South Korean ambassador to the United States, Han Seung Soo, the following day and accepted a letter from President Kim Young Sam expressing the South's gratitude as well.

"This is my life's work, to make efforts through The Carter Center, in a strictly unofficial way, to address conflicts in the world," President Carter said. "We will continue to follow the situation on the Korean Peninsula with great interest."

One wonders whether the thirty-ninth President of the United States of America considers his trademark "trust" in Communist dictators to have been misplaced yet again in the wake of the missile firings in the past several days. Carter, who is so totally predictable, will, of course, not blame North Korea. Oh, no. He will blame the United States of America. He will say that American policy-makers never lived up to his "agreement" with the Communist thugs in Pyongyang. The man who said in a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on May 22, 1977, that we had an "inordinate fear of Communism" and who appeased the corrupt Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna during the SALT II negotiations in June of 1979 and who supported the takeover of Nicaragua by the Communist Sandinistas later that same summer of 1979 has never met a Communist dictator he did not trust, at least at first blush.

It was not until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979 that Carter said to Barbara Walters in an end-of-the-year interview on the American Broadcasting Company television network, "Barbara, I've learned more about the Soviet Union in the past three weeks than I have in the past three years." Uh, duh, listen up, Mr. Carter, you Henry Wallace/George Mc Govern of the South: I mean, there were sixty-two years of something called history prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Never mind. Jimmy Carter, serving as an "international "observer," actually wept copious tears when his dear friend, Sandinista dictator Daniel Ortega, lost free elections in February of 1980 in Nicaragua. It was just four years after that that Carter was in Pyongyang to "feel the pain," to use the term of the then President, a chap named William Jefferson Blyth Clinton, of the North Korean leaders in order to broker an agreement that was completely and utterly worthless from the moment it was reached.

Jimmy Carter is a "globalist," that is a man who believes that "one world governance," that is, a matrix of inter-locking international organizations that supercede the legitimate claims of national sovereignty of nation-states, will bring people "closer together." It was Carter, after all, who completed the sellout of the Panama Canal in 1977 that had been initiated by President Richard Milhous Nixon and promoted thereafter by President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. (aka Leslie Lynch King, Jr.). The Panamanians have done exactly what then former Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan and Patrick Joseph Buchanan said would happen if the United States relinquished control of the Canal: they have outsourced the actual operations of the Canal to a foreign company, one that turned out to be based in, you got, the so-called People's Republic of China. Ah yes, the dreams of dreaming appeasers.

One might be surprised to find that President George Walker Bush does not entirely disagree with Jimmy Carter's globalism. Indeed, he is attempting to use create such a matrix so as to curb the national sovereignty of the United States of America in North America, taking the first steps to studying the possibility of a common currency to be used by this country and Mexico and Canada. (See the latest issue of the Howard Phillips Issues and Strategies Bulletin. Although Howard's prescription for our national problems is Calvinist and thus doomed to failure, he is the best collector of hard data concerning the sellout of the legitimate national security interests of this nation by the president who is waging a phantom "war on terror".) There is a great deal that unites Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, although they disagree on the use of American military might to achieve some of their common objectives.

President George W. Bush's approach to Iraq and North Korea and Iran--and to foreign policy in general--is a bit of a variation of Jimmy Carter's "human rights" crusade. The greater influence on Bush is, well, at least as a result of the influence of those around him, is that of Woodrow Wilson. a man who believes in the messianic mission of the United States of America to spread "liberty" and "democracy" and "human rights" around the world. Bush really believes that everyone in the whole world just wants to be "free" in the American sense of that word (what percentage of your income are you paying in taxes at the Federal, state and local levels?), demonstrating the ethnocentric blindness that is at the heart of Americanism. American ethnocentrists believe that most everyone in the whole world, save for a few spoilsports who just "don't get it," want to live just like us. This blindness was critiqued and eviscerated by Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

But the persisting blindness of superiority continues to hold the belief that all the vast regions of our planet should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice; that all those other worlds are but temporarily prevented (by wicked leaders or by severe crises or by their own barbarity and incomprehension) from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction. But in fact such a conception is a fruit of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, a result of mistakenly measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet's development bears little resemblance to all this.

American presidents from William McKinley through George W. Bush have believed, with a few exceptions here and there, that the United States, not the Catholic Church, is the "last best hope of mankind on earth. President Richard M. Nixon, for example, although a practitioner of realpolitik, believed that his program to turn the defense of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) to its own military would result in the defense of freedom in southeast Asia and thus the world. He invoked the vision of none other than the delusional Woodrow Wilson at the end of his “Vietnamization” speech, given from the White House on Monday, November 3, 1969:

Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end war." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.

Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated the goal of a just and lasting peace.

As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the Nation along it.

I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.

President Nixon really believed that his “peace plan” was going to bring about an era of a “just and lasting peace,” thus demonstrating the point made above: the nations can by various means, including brute strength if necessary, achieve a just and enduring peace without acknowledging that the fundamental precondition, although never a guarantor, of such peace is the confessional recognition of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the active effort on the part of ordinary citizens to strive for peace of the soul by cooperating with the graces won for us by Our Lord on the wood of the Holy Cross.

President Nixon spent his entire life laboring under this delusion. His sixth successor in the White House, President George W. Bush, shares Nixon’s delusions. Lacking Nixon’s sobriety, however, he must cloak himself in the mantle of cheering military audiences as he speaks his delusional dreams of a world of peace without Christ as He has revealed Himself through His true Church and as He has entrusted it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  The "crisis" in North Korea provides yet another opportunity for Bush to demonstrate his desire for "world peace," just as he did at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on June 28, 2005:

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women, it demands the steadfastness of our allies, and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens, because we know what is at stake. We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way, and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

Yes, despite some philosophical and strategic differences among various presidents, each of them has believed in their own unique ability, either through the invocation of the "American" spirit (Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush) or the "globalist" spirit (Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Clinton) that are simply two sides of the same coin. Bush the younger falls into the former category of delusional leaders who believe that the American way is the only true path to "peace," making it possible for there to be the novus ordo secolorum, the New World Order of peace and justice for all in line with the “American” way.

Ah, but what is the “American” way? It is the way of Protestant individualism. It is the way of Calvinist materialism. It is the way of Masonic “brotherhood” and religious indifferentism. It is the way of corporate greed and wage slavery. It is the way of relativism and positivism and pragmatism. It is the way of sloganeering and political careerism. It is the way that leads to the domination of American foreign policy by Israel and by the corporate interests that are heavily invested in Red China. It is the way of egalitarianism and majoritarianism. It is the way of cultural and religious pluralism. It is the way, in other words, of social chaos and eternal death. The mere fact that Catholics have an “opportunity” to practice their Faith and thus promote its tenets does nothing to undo the simple fact that a country founded on anti-Catholic principles winds up coopting the vast majority of Catholics into becoming merry participants in the national myths and the mindless chanters of the popular slogans of current discourse.

Pope Leo XIII noted this exact point in Libertas, 1888:

But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt.

Others oppose not the existence of the Church, nor indeed could they; yet they despoil her of the nature and rights of a perfect society, and maintain that it does not belong to her to legislate, to judge, or to punish, but only to exhort, to advise, and to rule her subjects in accordance with their own consent and will. By such opinion they pervert the nature of this divine society, and attenuate and narrow its authority, its office of teacher, and its whole efficiency; and at the same time they aggrandize the power of the civil government to such extent as to subject the Church of God to the empire and sway of the State, like any voluntary association of citizens. To refute completely such teaching, the arguments often used by the defenders of Christianity, and set forth by Us, especially in the encyclical letter Immortale Dei, are of great avail; for by those arguments it is proved that, by a divine provision, all the rights which essentially belong to a society that is legitimate, supreme, and perfect in all its parts exist in the Church.

Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.

From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.

There can be no order in society unless there is order within the souls of men. There can be no order within the souls of men unless they are members of the Catholic Church and are trying to cooperate with the Sanctifying Graces she makes available to them in the sacraments.

There can be no peace in the world of any sort, not even the illusory peace of an absence of armed conflict, without a firm reliance upon Christ the King and upon Mary our Immaculate Queen, especially through her Most Holy Rosary. Men and nations need the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen as exercised by the Catholic Church.

There will be no "peace plan" in Iraq or Iran or North Korea or the Middle East or anywhere else that can take the place of Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan. None. While national leaders have the obligation to defender their legitimate national security interests and to deter actual threats of aggression when these are imminent, the belief that mankind will ever produce a "structure of peace" without Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother is diabolically inspired.

Although Pope Pius XI's Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, has been oft-quoted on this site, a section will be included here by way of reiteration:

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

Grave calamities and convulsions await us because world leaders are not being reminded by those who hold ecclesiastical power at present of these immutable truths. Chastisements of the type we cannot even image await us because even two popes who did reiterate these immutable truths, Pius XI and Pius XII, refused to do what the conciliar popes later refused to do: consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops. Oh, yes, great calamities and chastisements await us. Look at what happened to France one hundred years to the year after King Louis XIV and the bishops of France refused Our Lord's specific request, made through Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, to consecrate the entire nation of France to His Most Sacred Heart. The French Revolution, with whose bloody principles the Second Vatican Council made a reconciliation, according to the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, occurred in 1789, one hundred years after then Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque's plea was refused. Interesting, no?

We must simply try to stay in a state of Sanctifying Grace, saying as many Rosaries every day as our state-in-life permits. The worst thing in the world is not nuclear war, which I don't think is going to happen as a result of the useless missiles being fired by North Korea at this time. The worst thing in the world is dying in a state of final impenitence. It is that we must fear, not the tragic consequences that await a world born of the insanity that contingent beings, who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave until the Last Day, can create peace and order absent a frank and confessional submission to the Deposit of Faith Our Lord entrusted to the Catholic Church and without a firm reliance upon Sanctifying Grace so that their intellects may be enlightened by the Faith and their wills strengthened to act in conformity with It at all times.

Entrusting all to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, we ask her very simply to pray for us, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen!

Vivat Christus Rex!

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 Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Zaccaria, pray for us.

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Blessed Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

Sister Lucia, 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.  








© Copyright 2006, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.