Folks, we have an intercessor against the DeathJab: Blessed Theodore Romzha, executed by LETHAL INJECTION by the Communists

Dear Ann,

I propose Bl. Theodore Romzha as patron saint against the death jab. Bl. Theodore Romzha was a young Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) bishop who was opposed by the Communists and was put to death by lethal injection on the orders of Khruschev.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Romzha

When men were men….

Blessed Romzha, pray for us!

How about some REALLY good news with regards to The Church? Fr. John Corapi is in a monastery, doing penance, and will die in prayer and repentant silence. This is the best possible outcome.

Full reportage here from RenewAmerica.com. Seriously folks, this is great news. Now the Corapi saga is finally put to bed in the worldly sense, and everyone should thank God, and move on.

The truth is, Fr. Corapi might be doing WAY more good and calling down far more graces upon this world, praying in penitential silence as a monk priest than he ever did being on EWTN and packing arenas. Seriously folks, the Divine Economy is unfathomable and largely hidden to our eyes.

Pray, as I do every day, for ALL fallen priests, especially those living in sickening public scandal, Fr. Thomas Williams (now of Breitbart) first among them. All priests will stand before Christ at their Particular Judgments AS PRIESTS, and bishops AS BISHOPS. It is a terrifying thought, which sadly, hardly any priests or bishops truly believe or take the least bit seriously. It seems that Fr. Corapi has. Thank God.


    I was told by the superior general of his order (SOLT), Father Peter Marsalek, back in 2016 as we were driving from the airport to speak at a Catholic parish that Father Corapi had reconciled with his order. He’s living the life of a monk in a monastery and has medical problems. He will never speak in public again—by his choice and his superior’s choice as well.

    I’m a friend of Father Corapi. He told me he wanted to end his life as a monk and he’s now living out his express desires. This is where he saw himself in his senior years: full-time prayer and penance.

    There are some who say, “What a hypocrite; he didn’t live what he preached.” The Holy Bible makes it very clear that none of us are perfect. We are all sinners in need of God’s mercy.

    Psalm 129:3-4, If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it. For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word.

    In other words, if God judged all our actions based on strict justice, we would all be going to hell. But God is merciful to those who repent. Father Corapi has repented and lives the life of a monk, praying and doing penance for his sins and the sins of the world.

    Virgin most powerful, pray for him.


Dear Bishop Stika: Pope St. Pius V, our father in God, the Pope of the Battle of Lepanto, would have deposed and laicized you, and turned you over to the secular authorities to be tried and executed for sodomy, you hideous, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing faggot. Quote me. Please.

In one of his very first acts as pope, Pope St. Pius V in Cum Primum on April 1, ARSH 1566 ordered that sodomites be executed by the secular authorities.

Two years later, he declared in a Constitution:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.” (Constitution Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

–***–

This sodomite crap isn’t a game, folks. Satan is playing for keeps, and we would all do well to face this fact now.  Better late than never.

Pray for us to the Lord Our God, Papa Ghislieri, that we be delivered from the brutal jackboot of the sodomites.

Italian Front Page: “Renunciation, Resignation, Abdication: What Did Benedict Really Do?” by Andrea Cionci under Marco Tosatti’s byline

Full algorithmic translation here. It’s long, but worth it if you love the Holy Father and the Papacy. -AB

Link to original in Italian here.


Renunciation, Resignation, Abdication: What Did Benedict Really Do?

Marco Tosatti

Prologue

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, our friend Andrea Cionci sent us the complete text of the article he published – in summary – today on Libero, in which he still deals with the resignation-resignation of Benedict XVI, this time exploring the theme from the point of view of the abdication of the Pontiff. As you well know, Stilum has hosted other articles on the subject in the recent past; even if it seems to us that from a practical point of view – since there is no authority that can enforce these theses – the situation remains the one we live in; that is, alas, a situation of extreme confusion. Enjoy the reading

…….§§§……

 

Benedict XVI unequivocal: “I resigned, but I did not abdicate”

By Andrea (Andrew) Cionci

Dear Tosatti,

with regard to the debated question about the resignation of Benedict XVI, many are impatiently asking: “If he is still the pope, why doesn’t he say so clearly?”

After a discussion with authoritative scholars, here is a document where Pope Ratzinger explains unequivocally that, although with the Declaratio of 2013 he “resigned” by renouncing the “ministerium”, the practical functions, conversely he did not “abdicate” the ” munus ”, the divine title of pope. (Words are important: to resign is to renounce functions, to abdicate is to renounce the title of sovereign).

Boring “clerical legalisms”, as Bergoglio says? No. This is a huge problem – which is carefully avoided in the public debate – because, as everyone knows, if a living pope does not abdicate the munus by decaying completely, another conclave cannot be held. Even from the theological point of view, the Holy Spirit does not guide the election of the pope in an illegitimate conclave, nor does he assist him. Therefore, the “Pope Francis” would never have existed, he would only be a “bishop dressed in white”, as in the Third Secret of Fatima and no one, in his succession line, would be a true pope. This is why, before criticizing Francis, or making conspiracies, it would be much more worthwhile to apply to the question that precedes and presupposes the validity of the 2013 conclave. It would explain everything.

But let’s get to the document in question: on p. 26 of “Latest conversations”  (Garzanti 2016), book-interview by Peter Seewald, the journalist asks Benedict XVI: ” With you, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions was discharged from his “office”. Was there an internal conflict over the decision? ”

Answer:  “ It’s not that simple, of course. No pope has resigned for a thousand years and even in the first millennium it was an exception : p Accordingly such a decision you have to ponder long. For me, however, it became so evident that there was no painful inner conflict ”.

An absurd statement, as we commonly imagine the word “resignation”: in the last  thousand years  (1016-2016) there have been  four popes  who have renounced the throne, (including the famous Celestine V, in 1294) and,  in first millennium  of the papacy (33-1033), there were  six others. Perhaps Pope Ratzinger, in addition to having difficulties with Latin (given the inexplicable errors in the Declaratio ), does not even know the history of the Church well?

His phrase, on the other hand, has a perfectly logical and coherent meaning if we understand that “resigning” from the ministerium – as Pope Ratzinger did – does not at all entail “abdicating” the munus. If anything, it can be the other way around. The distinction – vaguely (and perhaps intentionally) hypnotic – between munus and ministerium was formalized at the canonical level in 1983, but it is useful for Benedict XVI to convey a very clear message: in fact, he is not talking to us about the popes who have abdicated. , but of those who resigned like him, that is, the popes who lost only the ministerium , without abdicating.

Everything goes back: the “exception” of the first millennium of which Ratzinger speaks is that of Benedict VIII, Theophilact of the counts of Tusculum who, ousted in 1012 by the anti-pope Gregory VI, on the run, had to renounce the ministerium for a few months ,  but not he lost the pope’s munus at all , so much so that he was later re-installed on the throne by the holy emperor Henry II. In the second millennium, however, no pope ever renounced the ministerium alone , while as many as four popes abdicated, renouncing the munus ( and, consequently, also the ministerium).

Consulted on the historical question alone, Prof. Francesco Mores, professor of Church History at the University of Milan confirms: “This difference actually exists between the first and second millennium. The decisive point is the 11th century reform, which we also call “Gregorian” (1073). Although in conflict with the secular powers, the popes always maintained a minimum of practical exercise of their power, unlike very few cases in the first millennium, Pontian, Silverio (who lost the ministerium for a few months, but then explicitly abdicated ed) and Benedict VIII (who, having temporarily lost the ministerium, was reinstated on the papal throne by the emperor Henry II ed) who is placed, not by chance,on the threshold of the transformation of the papal institution which took place between the first and second millennium “.

Benedict XVI is clearly telling us that he renounced the ministerium like his ancient, homonymous predecessor, but that neither of them has ever abdicated the munus .

If this were not the case, how could Ratzinger say that by resigning like him, no pope resigned in the second millennium and that in the first millennium he was an exception “? There is no escape.

Further confirmation comes from Seewald’s other interview book, “Ein Leben”, where, on p. 1204, Benedict XVI distances himself from Celestine V, who legally abdicated in the second millennium (1294): “The situation of Celestine V was extremely peculiar and could in no way be invoked as (my) precedent”.

Also in Ein Leben, the word “abdication” appears eight times – nine in the German edition (“Abdankung”) – and never referred to Ratzinger, but only to popes who really abdicated, such as Celestino, or who really wanted to do so, like Pius XII to escape the Nazis. For Ratzinger, however, there is only talk of resignation (“Ruecktritt”).

After all, Benedict XVI also repeated it in the last audience on February 27, 2013: “The gravity of the decision was precisely in the fact that from that moment (the election of 2005 ed) onwards I was always and forever committed by the Lord . […] My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. […] I no longer carry the power of the office for the government of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the precincts of St. Peter ”.

Today, therefore, we would not have “two popes”, but “half” popes: only Benedict XVI, deprived of practical power. For this reason, he continues to dress in white (even without a cape and sash), to sign himself PP (Pontifex Pontificum), to live in the Vatican and inexplicably enjoy other pontifical prerogatives. Are there any other explanations?

The question cannot pass into cavalry: one billion and 285 million Catholics have the right to know who the pope is. Perhaps a press conference by Pope Benedict, for example, or, as already mentioned, a synod with public discussion between bishops and cardinals appointed before 2013: clarifying – in an absolutely transparent way – can no longer be postponed.

Deepening

Responding to Seewald, regarding his resignation from his office, Ratzinger immediately specifies: “It is not so” simple “, that is,” the papal office is not “in one piece” because in 1983 the distinction was made, in canon law, between munus and ministerium, or between divine title and practical exercise. Some Bergoglian canonists argue that Benedict XVI resigned because the ministerium and the munus are inseparable. Of course: these are inseparable only as an “initial right” of the pontiff, in the sense that a newly elected pope has, in addition to the title, by force of circumstances, the right to also exercise the ministerium, the practical power. However, the two entities are neither equivalent nor inseparable since a pope, if by renouncing the munus, obviously also loses the ministerium, conversely, he may very well renounce the ministerium by keeping the munus and remaining pope.

An example? A new father certainly has the inseparable right to educate his child, but if he cannot do it for various reasons, he can delegate this task to others. But he always remains the father.

Ratzinger himself in “Latest conversations” on p. 33 cites the example: “Even a father stops being a father. It does not cease to be, but leaves concrete responsibilities. He continues to be a father in a deeper, more intimate sense, with a particular relationship and responsibility, but without the duties of the father ”.

Let’s go back to the historical reference and we will see that the accounts add up.

Ratzinger then summarized in his sentence how no pope abandoned the ministerium (thus remaining pope in all respects) in a thousand years (between 1016 and 2016) while, in the first millennium (33-1033) this was an exception . It’s true. He renounces only the ministerium like those few popes of the first millennium, with the difference that he does so voluntarily. Seewald’s own question specifies it: “ With you, for the first time in the history of the Church, a pontiff in the full and effective exercise of his functions has resigned from his office”.

And here is the complete explanation of Prof. Francesco Mores, professor of Church History at the University of Milan: «There actually is this difference between the first and second millennium regarding the functioning of the papal institution. The decisive junction is the 11th century reform, which we also call “Gregorian” (from Pope Gregory VII, bishop of the Church of Rome from 1073 to 1085): a hierocratic strengthening of the role of the pope. With the establishment of a first form of “cardinal clergy”, from 1059, the popes managed to structure and control certain offices, also thanks to the creation of an official hierarchy. Although in conflict with the secular powers, the bishops of the Church of Rome always maintained a minimum of practical exercise of their power, unlike very few cases in the first millennium:those of popes Ponziano and Silverio – who were perhaps deposed on the initiative of the imperial power – and of Pope Benedict VIII, who was supported by Henry II against the “antipope” Gregory, supported by the Roman Crescenzi family. Elected perhaps in 1012, Benedict VIII is not by chance placed on the threshold of the transformation of the papal institution which took place between the first and second millennium “.

As a further confirmation, writes the medievalist Roberto Rusconi, in his volume “The Great Refusal” (Morcelliana 2013): “In the first centuries the renunciations of the popes had been forcedly caused in the context of imperial persecutions […] Sometimes it was of explicit waivers, sometimes of de facto removals “.

Prof. Agostino Paravicini Baragliani, one of the leading scholars of the papacy, adds: “[For the popes from 1016 onwards] it does not seem to me that the problem of the loss of their function can be posed, certainly not for the popes who have been successful” .

Therefore Benedict XVI’s statement is perfectly correct only if his “resignation” is understood as a renunciation of the ministerium, without abdication of the munus, as he wrote in the Declaratio.

And we come to those “exceptions” of popes who “resigned” like Benedict XVI: Pope Pontian (? -235), who was deported to Sardinia and for a few months renounced the ministerium before abdicating spontaneously and legally, abandoning the office . Pope Silverio, (480-537), deported to the island of Patara who was deprived of the ministerium from 11 March to 11 November 537, until he voluntarily abdicated. The most significant case concerns another Benedict, the VIII, born Theophilact II of the counts of Tusculum. 

In 1012, he was ousted by the antipope Gregory VI and forced to flee Rome, leaving the ministerium  in the hands of his adversary for a few months  ,  until the holy emperor Henry II  did justice by driving out the antipope Gregory and reinstating him on the throne of Peter. Benedict VIII therefore ALWAYS remained THE POPE and, even if for some months he was forced to renounce the ministerium, he never abdicated .

In conclusion

With his response to Seewald, Benedict XVI put pen to paper, with an unequivocal historical reference, albeit linked to a 1983 distinctio , that he announced that he would renounce the ministerium alone and that, having not abdicated, he is still the one and only pope. This is why he continues to say that the pope is one without explaining which one.

Had he resigned in the sense of “abdicating”, Ratzinger would never have been able to affirm that “in the last thousand years no pope has resigned”, since there is the well-known case of Celestine V’s rejection (1294). And here is, in fact, further proof, what Ratzinger declares in the interview book “Ein Leben” by Peter Seewald (2020).

Seewald’s question: “In 2009 she visited the tomb of Pope Celestine V, the only pope before her to resign; still today we wonder about the meaning of that visit. What was behind it? ”

Response of Benedict XVI: “The visit to the tomb of Pope Celestine V was actually a chance event; in any case I was well aware of the fact that Celestine V’s situation was extremely peculiar and therefore it could in no way be invoked as a precedent ”.

In fact, Celestino abdicated by writing: “… I freely and spontaneously abandon the Pontificate and expressly renounce the throne, the dignity, the burden and the honor that it entails”.

Ratzinger instead declared “to renounce the minister (ium) or Bishop of Rome”. Thus, he maintains a white robe and various other pontifical prerogatives because he has never abdicated.

One last consideration

In the margin, a note to be taken with the benefit of an inventory that is always necessary when it comes to prophecies, including saints and mystics recognized by the Church. The imaginative language of these messages is not susceptible to literal interpretations, however we cannot fail to record how in the prophecies of the mystic Katharina Emmerick, beatified by John Paul II, there are references that can be adapted to the history and figure of Pope Benedict VIII of Tusculum, whose “rediscovery”, as we have seen, could have disruptive consequences.

Emmerick notes: “I had a vision of the holy Emperor Henry II. I saw him at night, alone, kneeling at the foot of the main altar in a large and beautiful church… and I saw the Blessed Virgin come down alone. She spread a red cloth covered with white linen on the altar, placed a book inlaid with precious stones and lit the candles and the perpetual lamp ”.

The mystic also refers to a sort of great pontiff who will come to set things right in the Church: “I saw a new Pope who will be very rigorous. He will alienate cold and lukewarm bishops. He is not a Roman, but he is Italian. He comes from a place not far from Rome, and I believe he comes from a devoted family of royal blood. But for some time there must still be many struggles and unrest ”. (January 27, 1822).

The figure of a strong and saving pope is also found in the message of Our Lady of Good Success, recognized by the Church, (apparition of 1594 in Quito). “There will be many factors that cooperate in Mary’s revenge and in the restoration of the Church and of Christianity, but only one, decisive, is enunciated by Our Lady: the role that a privileged man, a“ great prelate ”will have.

Now, the emperor Henry II was the one who put the real Pope Benedict VIII back on the throne, Theophilact of the counts of Tusculum, feudal lords of Tusculum, a few kilometers from Rome.

Teofilatto was a descendant of another pope, John XII of Tusculum and was related to Hugh of Provence, king of Italy from 926 to 947: therefore perhaps of “royal” blood?

Benedict VIII was a very firm pope: he engaged in the Tyrrhenian against the Saracens, supported the anti-Byzantine revolts in southern Italy, condemned simony and … reaffirmed the celibacy of the clergy. Does it remind you of anyone?

One could also fantasize about the fact that the Madonna who comes “in the night of the Church” to answer Henry II’s prayers wants to show a cardinal illegally dressed in white (the red cloth covered with white linen) and that the precious book is the Codex of Canon Law and the lamp, the light of reason or devotion to a deceased pope.

Could the “arrival” of this “great salvific prelate” be, therefore, in the rediscovery of this key reference to Benedict VIII? Other prophecies refer to a church that, like a bandaged and tied eagle, waits to be released in flight. And in the coat of arms of Benedict VIII there is a black eagle (animal of St. John) on a gold field.

After all, does it seem realistic to you that in the next few years a bishop of royal blood will emerge from Bracciano, Marino, Monteporzio or some other town near Rome?

Obviously, these are only suppositions, and it could not be otherwise in the case of prophecies. Of course, the rediscovery of the exceptional case of Pope Benedict VIII cited by Ratzinger could generate a series of chain phenomena. If the great prelate is Theophilacus, history will tell us.

§§§

Q&A: Ann, if Pope Benedict is still the Pope, why does it even matter?

Q: Ann, even if Pope Benedict is still the Pope, why does it even matter?

A: If Pope Benedict is the one and only living Pope (which he is), that means that Jorge Bergoglio is NOT the Pope, and never has been. Every heretical utterance and act that Antipope Bergoglio has made is completely outside the domain of the Papacy, and leaves no stain of scandal on the Papacy, and Antipope Bergoglio has zero participation in the Magisterium. The words, “Well, Pope Francis said…” can never be uttered and used as a cudgel against Christ and His Church for all eternity, because there is no “Pope Francis”, only the criminal usurper fraud Antipope Bergoglio.

This is now being brought to bear by satan with regards to the DeathJab. Catholics are already being told that they can claim NO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION to the poison DeathJab because… wait for it… “Pope FWAAAANCISSS said you can and must get the Vacks…!”

Huh. It seems the importance of the public recognition of the true identity of the Vicar of Christ on Earth suddenly comes into even sharper relief when the global Freemasonic putsch regime in intimate cooperation with the Antichurch and Antipope Bergoglio are looming over everyone you love trying to get them injected with Zyklon-B in a syringe. Chris Ferrara, please call your office….

“Pope Francis” is not real. “Pope Francis” is a lie, a total fiction. The REAL matters. The Truth matters. There is only Jorge Bergoglio, an apostate arch-criminal usurper Antipope, the head of the Freemasonic Antichurch, the ape of the True Church, and of the true visible head of the Church – an Antipope, and likely the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist. Antipope Bergoglio is an obvious “stranger”, a “wolf”, the selfsame as specifically warned about to us in the Holy Gospels by Our Lord Himself.

Who the Pope is, and who the Pope isn’t, matters. If the identity of the Pope were irrelevant, then the Papacy itself would be irrelevant, because it would be invisible. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and therefore the visible head and principle of unity of the Church Militant. Unity with the Pope is the standard of schism. Therefore, who the Pope is matters.

Because the Pope has the authority that Christ has directly given to him, the very Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the very power to bind and loose, that authority can never, ever be ascribed to a man who does not actually possess it, and does not therefore enjoy the supernatural protection guaranteed by Christ to Peter and all of Peter’s successors. To falsely ascribe Petrine authority to a man who is not the Pope is to hand Satan the ability to cause total chaos, and to cause countless souls to be deceived and scandalized unto eternal damnation.

The greatest act of violence that can be done to the Papacy is not to deny that the Papacy exists, but rather to call a man who is not Peter, “Peter”.

The Truth matters, and it matters because the Truth is a Person, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To deny that the Truth matters is to deny that God matters. Our Lord is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life, and ONLY through Him, with Him and in Him can we see the Father. There is no lie in God. There is no error in God. There is no unreality in God, who is reality. “I AM WHO AM. Before Abraham was, I AM.”

To love God is to love Truth. To love Truth is to love God.

Indifference to Truth is indifference to God.

Indifference to God is indifference to Truth.

The Third Glorious Mystery of the Rosary is the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and Mary at Pentecost. The fruit of this Mystery is love of God, zeal, which illuminates this question.

I hope this helps.

”YES, MA’AM!”

Friday (30 April) was the Feast of St. Catherine of Siena, and also the EIGHTH anniversary now of my official vacating of my old real estate holdings and officially entering into my status “in the proverbial van down by the river”.

Here are just a few of the illiterate laywoman Catherine’s words to remind us why she is a Doctor of the Church, defender of the Papacy, and our dear patroness:

“Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.”

Yes, Ma’am.

“Start being brave about everything. Drive out darkness and spread light. Don’t look at your weaknesses. Realize instead that in Christ crucified you can do everything.”

Yes, Ma’am.

“You are rewarded not according to your work or your time but according to the measure of your love.”

Yes, Ma’am.

He will provide the way and the means, such as you could never have imagined. Leave it all to Him, let go of yourself, lose yourself on the Cross, and you will find yourself entirely.

Yes, Ma’am.

Preach the Truth as if you had a million voices. It is silence that kills the world.

Yes, Ma’am.

A soul cannot live without loving. It must have something to love, for it was created to love.

Yes, Ma’am.

It is only through shadows that one comes to know the light.

Yes, Ma’am.

To the servant of God… every place is the right place, and every time is the right time.

Yes, Ma’am.

Nothing great is ever achieved without much enduring.

Yes, Ma’am.

We are of such value to God that He came to live among us… and to guide us home. He will go to any length to seek us, even to being lifted high upon the cross to draw us back to Himself. We can only respond by loving God for His love.

Yes, Ma’am.

We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.

Yes, Ma’am.

Strange that so much suffering is caused because of the misunderstandings of God’s true nature. God’s heart is more gentle than the Virgin’s first kiss upon the Christ. And God’s forgiveness to all, to any thought or act, is more certain than our own being.

Yes, Ma’am.

You must believe in truth that whatever God gives or permits is for your salvation.

Yes, Ma’am.

Do not be satisfied with little things, because God wants great things!

Yes, Ma’am.

And of what should we be afraid? Our captain on this battlefield is Christ Jesus. We have discovered what we have to do. Christ has bound our enemies for us and weakened them that they cannot overcome us unless we so choose to let them. So we must fight courageously and mark ourselves with the sign of the most Holy Cross.

Yes, Ma’am.

Enrich your soul in the great goodness of God: The Father is your table, the Son is your food, and the Holy Spirit waits on you and then makes His dwelling in you.

Yes, Ma’am.

Proclaim the truth and do not be silent through fear.

Yes, Ma’am.

The devil fears hearts on fire with love of God.

Yes, Ma’am.

Of course you are unworthy. But when do you hope to be worthy? You will be no more worthy at the end than at the beginning. God alone is worthy of Himself, He alone can make us worthy of Him.

Yes, Ma’am.

Dear St. Catherine of Siena, mystical bride of Christ, and our most admirable, exemplary and charitable patroness, pray for us.

The Mystical Marriage of St. Catherine to Christ Jesus, at the behest and witness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Clemente de Torres. ARSH 1700