Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure

by Thomas A. Droleskey

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a living, breathing archetype of the sort of Modernist described by Pope Saint Pius X in the passage above from Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907. This is something that I have documented in over three hundred seventy-five articles in the past five years. Ratzinger/Benedict has told us in no uncertain terms that he knows what the Catholic Church has taught on the nature of dogmatic truth. He has told us repeatedly that he knows what the Catholic Church has taught about religious liberty, false ecumenism, separation of Church and State and the very nature of her Divine Constitution. No one can say that Ratzinger/Benedict does not know what the Catholic Church has taught when trying to exculpate him on the man occasions that he teaches the very opposite of what she has proclaimed consistently until the death of our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, on October 9, 1958.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows what the Catholic Church has taught. As a disciple of Modernism by way of the "new theology" that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Ratzinger/Benedict believes that dogmatic statements made by the Fathers of the Church's twenty legitimate councils and by her true popes have been conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. This is, as I have noted quite repeatedly on this site, utter blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, as it is He Who directed the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's true councils and our true popes to express themselves in the precise language that they used. God is immutable. The expression of the truths contained in His Sacred Deposit of Faith may deepen over time, never, however, in any way that can be construed even remotely as contradicting what Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial. The belief that the expression of dogmatic truths is conditioned upon the historical circumstances in which they were formulated has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, and no one but no one can claim that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is unaware of this condemnation without demonstrating himself to be devoid of any intellectual integrity.

Here, yes, once again, is a review of some of these condemnations of what has "evolved," rhetorically speaking, into Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity:"

• For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

  • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
  • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
• Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

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

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

 

The inherent instability of the idiocy that is the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" produces such instability and uncertainty into the lives of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that not the conciliar "popes" and their defenders open themselves up to being contradicted at some later point if a future "pope" decides that he needs to "interpret" the words of the "Second" Vatican Council and the likes of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in a different way. The logical conclusion to all of this is as follows: Why should anyone pay attention to anything that any of these "popes" write and say since it can all be wiped away just as easily as John Paul II and Benedict XVI and their apologists have attempted to wipe away those things from the Catholic past they do not like or are not "accessible" to the totally mythical entity known as "modern" man?

To quote Pope Saint Pius X once again:

Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

 

The wreckage of souls that has been accomplished by the doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutions of conciliarism that have indeed razed the the last bastions of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals is vast. And this wreckage is all founded in the quicksand of the denial of the nature of dogmatic truth--and thus of the very nature of God Himself, it should be added--and a rupture from the Catholic past that is said to be necessary.

The non-Scholastic mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, though, sees no contradiction between his own views and the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. That dogmatic teaching simply needs to be "understood" differently in light of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." He, Ratzinger/Benedict is a disciple of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, who believed that truth contains internal contradictions within it, turning Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction entirely on its head.

It is nothing other than astounding that so many supposedly traditionally-minded Catholics, including many traditionally-minded priests and presbyters in the conciliar structures, have decided to bite their lips about Ratzinger/Benedict's manifest denial of the nature of dogmatic truth. These Catholics have decided that it is "prudent" to bury their heads in the sand as though God Himself is not offended and souls are not deceived by Ratzinger/Benedict's lifelong advocacy of the condemned Modernist view of dogmatic truth. Those who believe that they are going to "restore" the Church Militant on earth by being silent in the face of such a foundational defection from the  Catholic Faith in order to preserve the "approval" of the conciliar authorities for the offering or staging of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is being even more modernized in incremental ways on a regular basis are demonstrating themselves to be the sort of "useful idiots" who can be manipulated by the conciliar revolutionaries to further institutionalize the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the postconciliar "popes."

The "cone of silence" that descends upon the minds of such Catholics to prevent them from even thinking about Ratzinger/Benedict's defection from the Holy Faith's teaching on the nature of dogmatic truth, no less speaking about this defection, is lifted, however, whenever one of Ratzinger/Benedict's "bishops" advances the exact same defection. The "disconnect" here is phenomenal to behold. Ratzinger/Benedict can openly praise in Portugal the very separation of Church and State there that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X without a word of protest from "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics in the conciliar structures. Ah, the "cone of silence" is lifted when one of the false "pontiff's" "bishops" attempt to claim that dogmatic pronouncements are historically conditioned. Such as "bishop" is then manhandled in the "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholic press for claiming the exact same thing that has been advanced by Ratzinger/Benedict throughout the course of his nearly sixty years as a priest.

Consider the case of a conciliar "bishop," George Stack, who is a sixty-four year-old auxiliary "bishop" in the Archdiocese of Westminster in England, who attempted to dismiss Marian dogmas as being historically conditioned when making a presentation before a receptive audience composed of representatives of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect that was formed by a lustful, murderous king and which possesses teachings and sacramental rites that have served as prototype of many, although not all, of the teachings and rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

“Many of you will remember the extraordinary scenes in Rome at the funeral of Pope John Paul II in April 2005. Among his many strong, identifiable, rock like characteristics was his devotion to Mary, Theotokos, Mother of God, God Bearer. He caused consternation when he became Pope and broke the rules of heraldry by insisting on having the letter “M” on his Papal coat of arms instead of an heraldic device. He regularly referred to his Episcopal motto as a sign of his devotion to Mary “Totus Tuus” — Totally Yours.

Perhaps surprisingly, it was this Pope who was noted for his devotion to Mary who wrote in his document on Church Unity “Ut Unum Sint” in 1995: …. “the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church …. is one of the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved”.

Was this not one purpose of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission’s work which began in 1970? Its latest phase concluded in 2005 with the Seattle Agreement “Mary Grace and Hope in Christ”. The subject of Mary had been addressed once before, in the ARCIC statement on Authority in the Church in 1981. The fact that Mary found a place in the theological and historical minefields of the document on Authority, and not just in devotional literature, is an indication of her important role in understanding how the salvation achieved by Jesus Christ is communicated to each individual believer and also to the community of the Church as a whole. This was the deliberate intention of the Second Vatican Council when it placed its reflections on the role of Mary in the unfolding plan of salvation in the document on The Church “Lumen Gentium”. It is in that context that I would like to reflect with you on the Seattle Agreement document “Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ” published jointly by the Anglican Communion and the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity in Rome.

The authors give the purpose and status of this document quite clearly in their introduction: “The authorities have allowed this statement to be published so that it may be widely discussed. It is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church, or by the Anglican Communion, who will study and evaluate the document in due course”.

“Study and evaluate the document in due course”: is this very far removed from those words of Pope John Paul I quoted earlier: “The study of Mary is one of the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved”? The Seattle statement itself seeks to do this when it says “In framing this statement, we have drawn on the scriptures and common tradition which predates the Reformation and Counter Reformation …. At the same time, we have had to face squarely dogmatic definitions which are integral to the faith of Roman Catholics but largely foreign to the faith of Anglicans”.

The sentence which brought joy to my heart said “We have sought to embrace one another’s way of doing theology” because it invites each of our communities to move away from static historical positions. Using the tools of biblical language, theological methods and even devotional life to seek to understand how the living faith of the Church is moulded by our understanding of the place of Mary in the Mystery of Faith, the saving action of Jesus her Son.

That is why, as a Catholic bishop, I welcome the properly “critical” nature of the series of essays by the Faith and Order Group of the Church of England. The neuralgic points of the Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary are examined in those essays through the eyes of scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the place of Tradition and now the authority of the Magisterium is exercised by the Pope and Bishops. I realise that these are all loaded words. John Paul’s “fuller study before a true consensus of faith is found” needs to engage critically with the evangelical conviction that the sinlessness of Mary somehow removes her from the need of the whole human race for salvation, makes her somehow “less” of a human being is focused on the text from Romans 3:23 (all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). Realised eschatology is the creative tool which explores this seeming conflict when applied to the two Marian doctrines. The status of Tradition in interpreting the scriptures, and whether it diminishes or distorts the primacy of the Word of God is a legitimate evangelical concern. Contrast the conviction of John Henry Newman that “it is not the assertion of an individual Father of the Church that carries weight, but their common testimony by which they witness to an apostolic tradition” with the weight placed in some essays that individual Fathers had dissenting views on the sinlessness, virginity and obedience of Mary. The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary may sometimes seem to distort or misunderstand the role of Jesus as the unique mediator between God and the human race. An example of such a distortion would be the development of a theology which places her as an intercessor by the side of her Son.

And the degree to which these dogmas and their teaching on virginity, sinlessness and obedience in the life of Mary have affected an understanding and role of women in the life of the church mentioned in the Faith and Order Group Response need to be explored in the historical context in which the dogmas were proclaimed. A changing understanding of sin and the need for redemption when these truths were under attack from an atheistic and reductionist politique was certainly an influence on Pius IX in his proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine of the Assumption in 1950 might be viewed in the context of a totalitarian crushing of the dignity of the human person by Fascist and Communist regimes.

These questions raised by a study of Mary Grace and Hope in Christ are equally legitimate for Catholics as they are for Anglicans in an exploration and explanation of the two doctrines on Our Lady and the light they shine on her life and the whole drama of salvation as lived out in and through the Church. Today’s debate is even more significant in the light of last week’s announcement that the third phase of the ARCIC dialogue will begin in May on the subject of “The Church as Communion – Local and Universal”. (Auxiliary "Bishop" of Westminster addresses the Church of England General Synod )

 

Why lambaste George Stack over his blatant apostasy and his utter blasphemy against the Blessed Virgin Mary as he attempts to link the proclamation of the Marian dogmas of her Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption into Heaven with the "historical context in which the dogmas were proclaimed" and remain completely silent when Ratzinger/Benedict uses this exact methodology to dismiss those Catholic teachings that he finds in need of "updating" or being understood in a "new" manner in a precise and exact contradiction of the very Oath Against Modernism that he had sworn to uphold? Where is the intellectual consistency to be found as people justly criticize George Stack while refusing to utter word one about the "pope's" efforts to deconstruct various teachings of the Catholic Church that he believes has become "obsolete" in the "details of the determinations they contain"?

Am I making this up? Well, let me try to prove to you once again how Ratzinger/Benedict has sought to justify his deconstruction of Catholic teaching, an effort that can be documented over the course of the last forty years without any break in consistency whatsoever:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

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

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would have us believe that God the Holy Ghost, the very Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, kept us from "knowing" until the latter part of the Twentieth Century that certain decisions of Holy Mother Church contain "practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change," which means that God the Holy Ghost misled the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII as they condemned the very view that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, says has been "learned" now. Ratzinger/Benedict would have us believe that God the Holy Ghost also failed Pope Pius IX, who condemned the following proposition in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

 

Don't beat up on George Stack unless you are ready to recognize that anyone, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who believes in the Modernist concept of dogmatic truth that has been condemned solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church has expelled himself from her maternal bosom and cannot hold any of her ecclesiastical offices legitimately.

In the midst of the incredibly blatant denial of the nature of dogmatic truth that is exhibited repeatedly by the false "pope" and his "bishops," we must, as always, have recourse to Our Lady as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and as we keep her company in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in our time in fervent prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. She will help us to cleave only to true bishops and to true priests who make absolutely no concessions to the abominable apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its "popes" and "bishops" who offend God so boldly, so openly and so brazenly--and with the full support and admiring approval of most of the world's baptized Catholics.

While each person must come to recognize this for himself (it took me long enough to do so; I defended the indefensible for far too long!), we must nevertheless embrace the truth once we do come to recognize and accept it without caring for one moment what anyone else may think about us as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. And we cannot use for any kind of excuse for our failure to embrace the truth of our ecclesiastical situation openly that one has other "projects" to complete or that one will stand to "lose" too much by doing so, that one can continue to "fight" to "restore" the Faith along the lines of the old Japanese soldiers who were hunkered down on Mindanao for decades after the end of World War II in the Asian theater on August 14, 1945 and the signing of Empire of Japan's unconditional surrender on September 2, 1945.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told us not to tarry when seeking to follow Him, which means that we must follow where His truth leads no matter what will happen to us and all of our supposedly "important" plans and "respect" in the eyes of the world:

[56] The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town. [57] And it came to pass, as they walked in the way, that a certain man said to him: I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. [58] Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. [59] But he said to another: Follow me. And he said: Lord, suffer me first to go, and to bury my father. [60] And Jesus said to him: Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou, and preach the kingdom of God.

[61] And another said: I will follow thee, Lord; but let me first take my leave of them that are at my house. [62] Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. (Luke 9: 56-62.)

 

There are all manner of excuses for not seeking the truth and adhering to it. I know. I made mine for far too long. I know. There does come a time, though, when we have to let the conciliar dead bury their own as we recognize that from their own lips they have expelled themselves from the Catholic Church as they defect from not merely one but many points of doctrine contained the Deposit of Faith that has been entrusted to her eternal safekeeping and infallible explication by her Divine Bridegroom and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

As I noted months ago now, we can never grow accustomed to apostasies that can never become acceptable with the passage of time. We can never grow accustomed to offenses given to God by the conciliar "popes" and their conciliar "bishops." We must never "spin" in their behalf. There is nothing stable, nothing secure in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It is indeed a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church (see Bookended From Birth to Birth.)

We must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to live more and more penitentially, making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins and for those of the whole word.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Viva Cristo Rey! 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 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints