Mailbag Q&A: How do we know that Pope Benedict’s attempt to expand the Papacy was out-of-bounds?

Hi Ann,

I’ve been reading your site and find your writing very edifying and helpful in these difficult times we live in. Of particular interest to me is your thesis that Jorge Bergoglio is not the legitimate successor of St. Peter.

While trying to understand the arguments you make to support this thesis, it has been very interesting to read about how Pope Benedict XVI believed he could somehow expand the Papacy. (see your article here: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/06/01/hey-remember-when-ganswein-doubled-down-on-his-20-may-2016-speech-a-week-later/) As you assert in another article, I believe that the Papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ himself and is therefore immutable. https://www.barnhardt.biz/2022/05/25/the-papacy-is/

Here’s my question: How do we know that Benedict XVI was in error when saying that the Papacy could not be changed in this way? What aspects of the Papacy are immutable and which ones are changeable? If any kind of ‘expansion’ is theologically possible, then would Jorge Bergoglio be a legitimate ‘participant’ in the Papacy and not an antipope? I’m asking in good faith to try to understand the argument better.

I appreciate your consideration. God bless your work. Please pray for me and for the conversion of my non-Catholic family.

-E

Great question, E! This is a cross post of a piece that NonVeni Mark actually put together several years ago which answers your question directly. -AB

GUEST POST: “The Perverse Opinions of Those Who Distort the Form of Government Established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

The following is a guest post by Mr. Mark Docherty of the NonVeniPacem Blog.

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture are the perverse opinions of those who distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church”

Note well the two-pronged attack on error, via proper Authority and Jurisdiction, woven throughout this quote:

“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.

“For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said, “You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42), that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, addressed these solemn words: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” (Mt 16:16-19).

“And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His Resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold, by the words: “Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17).

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
Pope Pius IX, PASTOR AETERNUS, 18 July 1870

What can we learn from this?

-Pio Nono was never vague or squishy

-The form of government of the Church, and the primacy of juridical and jurisdictional authority of the Church, was dictated by Christ Himself

-Since it was established by God Himself, it is immutable; not to be messed with in any way, no matter what the majority of 1960s German theologians thought HERE

-The Papacy was then, is now, and ever shall be until the consummation of the world, a Divinely Instituted Monarchy with full and universal power

-The transfer of the keys is conferred directly from Christ to Peter and to his successors (not through the cardinals, not upon the Church, nor through the Church to Peter… if at one time this seemed like a distinction without consequence, recent events have borne out its extreme importance)

-Yes, the Cardinals have the authority to elect a new pontiff, provided that the See is vacant (ahem, canon 359). But even if the See is indeed vacant and they validly elect a new pontiff, the papacy is bestowed upon the new pope directly by Christ Himself, not by the Cardinals, and not by the Church.

Let’s assume for a moment for the sake of argument that the 2013 “conclave and election” were valid, in the sense that Benedict’s failed partial abdication was not at issue. Let’s say the Cardinal electors followed all the rules, and voted legitimately. But the man they elected is an arch-heretic Marxist masonic non-Catholic, avowed enemy of the faith, who operates only in the material, non-supernatural realm of politics, economics, sociology, and ecology, extolling mankind to strive towards an earthly utopia as the ultimate good.

If that were to happen, is Christ really bound to confer the crown? While we have had awful, immoral, degenerate popes in the past, we have never, ever had a man like this one-world government, one-world religion poseur, squatting on the Chair of St. Peter. Never.

Think about this.

Now if the election/conclave were invalid, or in fact was not merely invalid, due to some procedural violations of UDG 81/82, but did not even take place, what would that mean? Would Christ transfer the keys to a man who was faux-elected in a faux-conclave that didn’t really take place? We are talking about ontological reality, not appearances. Sometimes appearances have nothing to do with reality, because as we learned, “An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation” HERE.

So if someone were to tell you that “the Church” has the power to grant or deny the papal office out of some majority opinion, or even super-majority opinion, or even “Universal Acceptance,” they would go against settled doctrine, and it would mean any pope could be deposed by mob rule.

If then they say that the super-majority (it’s certainly not “universal acceptance”) didn’t directly CAUSE the “resignation” to be valid nor CAUSE the subsequent “election” to be valid, but rather they invert the premise and say that the visible existence of the super-majority, while not causal, is in fact the PROOF SET of God accepting and acting, well then they would be claiming that the will of men forces the hand of God. God has NO CHOICE, and must act in accord with mob rule.Either this, or else they would have to claim that no no no, God accepts and acts on his own, of course, but then imposes His decision onto the minds of the super-majority, overriding their individual free will, and thus forcing the result of Universal Acceptance, in some sort of divine brainwashing.

These are circular arguments within circular arguments.

Note well, canon 332.2 is not a general norm, nor some kind of obscure/arcane law, but rather deals precisely with the occasion of a pope choosing to resign, and the required conditions for the validly of the resignation. 

The majority of the Catholic world is operating as if this canon does not exist or does not matter:

Can. 332§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

This tells us that:

-A papal abdication depends upon the free and proper manifestation of the resignation itself.

-The Cardinals have no authority to “accept” said resignation – their acceptance or rejection of the resignation has zero bearing the on the ontological reality of its validity; rather, its validity depends on it being freely and properly manifested. Christ is the arbiter, and Christ has bound Himself to the Law specifically to preclude the possibility of an “unknowable chaos” and guarantee the visibility of the Church, including at its earthly head.

We also have canon 188 fully in play in this matter, as there is a mountain of evidence that Benedict intended to create, and today believes he is participating in, an “Expanded Petrine Ministry,” which would be a most colossal “substantial error:”

Can. 188. A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

So again, if someone claims that “universal acceptance” of the election by the Cardinals, or even by the whole Church, guarantees both the acceptance of the election AND the acceptance of the antecedent resignation, remind them of a couple things:

-Whatever his reasons, Pope Benedict did not resign the Munus in his Latin Declaratio

-Pope Benedict (in his mind) created, defined, and executed his future role, which should have been at the sole discretion of the new Supreme Pontiff, had one actually been elected

-“Pope Emeritus” is not a real thing, is not provided for anywhere in canon law, and is an impossibility: When a bishop retires his office and becomes an ‘emeritus’ per can. 402.1, he becomes bishop emeritus of his diocese precisely because he remains a bishop but without the office…one cannot “remain pope” without the office

Benedict demonstrates his continued pontifical duties in various ways, including writing books and granting interviews, refusing to live in seclusion, imparting “MY Apostolic Blessing”, addressed as His Holiness, continuing to sign correspondence “HHPBXVI,” wearing the papal garb (because ahem “no other clothes were available”), prevented the fisherman’s ring from being destroyed, newly minted Cardinals are brought before him for his blessing…

-Benedict testified numerous times about his belief in the indelible nature of accepting the papacy, once pope always pope, that he is not fleeing but remaining “in a new way” in the enclosure of St. Peter, to fulfill the “essential spiritual nature” of the papacy as its contemplative participant, while delegating the governance aspect to the active participant

-All of the above point to an invalid non-resignation of the Munus per can. 332.2, and by “substantial error” per can. 188, and subsequently a “conclave” and “election” in March of 2013 that never happened. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s not crazy, it’s not schismatic. It’s the truth.

I (Mark Docherty) don’t have a degree in canon law, nor any advanced degrees of any kind. I have a diploma from a public high school and a B.S. in Food Marketing (from a Jesuit institution, no less… AMDG, y’all). But I can tell you this: Words have meaning; in the law, and in actions. That words are to be taken at face value, both in the law and in specific acts, is actually part of canon law (more to come on this). Everything presented here is done so according to the plain meaning of words, and you don’t need to be a genius to decipher it. Otherwise, it would be Gnosticism.

I’ll leave you with this little bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church’s ultimate trial

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576
676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

The Fauxp reverencing the Pope, while the Pope’s warden looks on.

Other Human Beings Matter.

“Not my circus, not my monkeys.” “Not my problem to fix.” “Above my pay grade.” “All I can do is focus on myself and my immediate household.” “If other people are scandalized, that’s their problem and their own fault.” “I can’t be arsed.” “This bores me. I’m not interested.”

This is just a sample of things you hear every day that are not only contrary to the virtue of fraternal charity, but even trying to use its inverse, the vice of indifference and acedia, as a proof of sanctity. Everything must be rooted in charity. Every soul is infinitely precious to Our Lord who knit every man together in his mother’s womb, and incarnated, suffered, died and rose again so that men might be with Him forever in the Beatific Vision. ANY blanket statement of indifference or acedia towards one’s fellow man is massively disordered. 

Our Lady, in her first trimester, underwent a long and physically arduous journey (probably on muleback) to help her elderly cousin Elizabeth then in her third trimester. Say what Our Lady said: “I have to go help.” Even with God Incarnate residing inside her womb, the ultimate paradigm of recourse, Our Lady didn’t merely pray for her cousin Elizabeth to the Infant Christ residing in her own womb, she PHYSICALLY WENT. For the love of Her Son, that is God Himself, she was filled with FRATERNAL CHARITY, that is, love for other human beings, and a desire to be of help and service at no small risk, inconvenience and discomfort (have you ever ridden a donkey?) to herself.

A very wise priest told me years ago that the number one mode of oppression that satan and the demons use in Rome which is the root of all of the wickedness in Rome, including all of the various sins against the 6th Commandment, is the vice of ACEDIA.  There is a demonic cloud of oppression parked over the city of Rome that rains down upon those living there every day and every night an acid rain of ACEDIA, pathological indifference and lovelessness – and hardly anyone in Rome is carrying a proverbial umbrella.  The Divine Office is barely prayed in Rome.  The Rosary is held in eyerolling contempt.  Adoration is sparse.  And almost every church has been physically desecrated by sodomites whose presence is UBIQUITOUS.

Acedia is the vice of indifference – to simply not care, but beyond that to NOT CARE THAT YOU DON’T CARE.  This makes perfect sense in light of our work on Diabolical Narcissism, which is the freely chosen self-purgation of charity (love) from the soul. Indifference is the opposite of love.  

This cancer of acedia is why such massive corruption and sexual perversion has been able to explode into near-ubiquitousness over the past century.  Turning a blind eye.  Declaring indifference. “Not my problem.” “I can’t be arsed.”  “I don’t care who X is having sex with. I just like being fawned over by rich, powerful people.”  

When what you are turning a blind eye to is the attempted rape and murder of the Bride of Christ, and thus the loss of countless souls, every one the beloved of Christ, the gravity of the fault goes exponential.

Beyond this, the new trend in “Trad, Inc.” is to declare indifference for Pope Benedict XVI, and rejection in the narcissistic formula, “Even if he is the Pope, I don’t WANT him back!”  Joseph Ratzinger matters.  The fact that he is the Vicar of Christ on Earth only underscores this.  The Blessed Virgin loved Peter even after he denied Our Lord and ran away from the foot of the Cross on Good Friday.  And she WOULD have received Judas Iscariot too, if he had gone to her.

Direct application to the Bergoglian Antipapacy: Other human beings matter.  Barricading yourself in your house – just “me ‘n Jesus” – washing your hands of the Bergoglian Antipapacy,  and declaring that it isn’t your problem is a lie and a cop-out. Publicly declaring and ginning up aggressive indifference to Pope Benedict XVI, and thus the Papacy itself is a species of acedia.  It is our problem, because other human beings are being scandalized unto damnation by it. Our Lady didn’t barricade herself in her house – just her and Jesus. She prayed AND acted.

Happy Feast of the Visitation.

Saint Elizabeth, pray for us.

Saint Zachariah, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Our Lady, undoer of knots, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

The Visitation, Ghirlandaio, ARSH 1491, Louvre

Mailbag: Gentleman reader sends a companion piece on dressing for the counter-Revolution

Now that we have the ladies on-side and on-the-march, here is a piece by a reader that I thoroughly recommend on dressing well:

Counter-Revolt HARDER… Why Dressing Like a Real Man is Easier (and Way Cooler) than You Realize

One distinction I would like to make: when I envision gentlemen being well-dressed again, I am NOT talking about the gay-dandy look with bright, feminine colors, and especially NOT ridiculously cut trousers, pencil thin with inseams five inches too high. I’m talking about masculine suits – waistcoat, high waist trousers, full-cut leg, inseam that breaks and rests atop the top of the shoe, and the only possible bright color being the tie and/or pocket square. Perhaps a VERY subtle pin striped or checked fabric. Masculine.

1930s

1940s

1950s

UPDATED: For the Ladies: How to lead the counter-revolution by your daily dress. (I almost forgot to mention respecting your husband by being modest and beautiful for him!)

This post has been a long time coming, and I have zero excuse for the delay.

I was alerted to the existence of an amazing company in October ARSH 2019 that makes semi-custom dresses – semi-bespoke is really the word – for very little money, and with excellent quality and labor practices. The company is out of India and is called eShakti.com , and many of you ladies might already be aware of them through weddings, etc.

I cannot say enough about this company. You set up a profile and enter over two dozen sartorial measurements. Their computers then form a custom pattern for you – semi-bespoke – and then you choose from their 1000+ dress patterns. But wait. It gets better. Every dress on their website can be modified. Usually 8+ necklines, 8+ sleeve lengths, and 8+ hem lengths. And you can SEE on the “virtual model” what each modification looks like. As of a month or so ago, they have now added a feature whereby if you find a dress pattern that really works for you, you can choose the fabric from their entire selection of the same fabric type.

This is the benefit of being totally “on demand”, driven by a database. The computers tell the fabric mill what to cut, and the machines how to cut and stitch it. It’s an absolutely brilliant business model, and has totally changed my sartorial life. Buying clothes used to be almost impossible- IMMODEST, too short, bad fit, ugly, etc. But now, I open my closet and it’s a genuine pleasure to pick which dress I’m wearing today.

After the War, something like this MUST be started in North America.

I get stopped and complimented every single day. Every day, and I live in a pretty “fashionable” place, or at least where there are “fashion people” slithering around. 🤢 And I’m low-key setting the tone. Folks, the counter-Revolution has to begin somewhere. Brushfires of… fashion? Why not?

So here is a photo essay of me today. My huge project this summer is wearing white wrist gloves – as all ladies did until ARSH 1965 or so.

The more I see fat, naked slobs walking around and rolling into shops and restaurants in slovenly garments that I literally would not sleep in, the harder I COUNTER-REVOLT. Hence the white summer gloves.

Ann, today, a Tuesday in June:

Navy blue with white polka-dot zip-front, ruched-waist, cap sleeve, mid-calf full skirted dress. I optioned for the neckline to be 2″ higher. This dress cost me $55, including the $10 semi-bespoke customization fee. I’m not kidding.

I have red espadrilles, which are very sharp with the blue, but today I’m wearing white.

Matching blue and white straw hat with wide brim. I bought this hat eight years ago for $15.

Finally, yes, white viscose gloves. Cheap ($15 per pair), and they can be washed frequently. I bought three pair right away so I can always have a clean pair. I actually recommend viscose and not cotton for the ease of care. Glove etiquette says a lady shakes hands WITH, but ALWAYS removes to eat or drink. Keep gloves on in church except to get Holy Water at the stoop upon entering and exiting. I do have to remove at least my right glove by necessity when using DivinumOfficium.com as my missal/breviary in order to use the touchscreen. I had to look glove etiquette up, because I had no idea, given my age. I was born in ’76 and thus missed the glove culture.

Folks, I dress like this EVERY DAY.

How ironic. All these girls walking around almost nekkid, or in uber-expensive designer trash (but I repeat myself), and it’s the 45-year old slightly-squishy woman rocking it like it’s ARSH 1951 in a $55 dress that everyone notices. Gentlemen chastely and respectfully appreciate, ladies appreciate and inquire. Children smile and stare. And I smile back. Occasionally I wink. 😉

The ultimate counter-revolt is being yourself, that is, being who God made you according to your true state in life, including dignity, and beauty. God did not make you a gutter slag or a fat pajama-wearing slob. Dressing with dignity and beauty (in both the feminine and masculine senses) is a sign of SELF-respect, and more importantly a sign of fundamental respect FOR OTHERS, including total strangers (Second Joyful Mystery of the Rosary – the Visitation; Fruit of the Mystery: Love of Neighbor, Fraternal Charity).

Even though I am nearly alone for now in my aesthetic, remember, beauty and fraternal charity are OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, and therefore I am the normal one, and the rest of society, naked or in pajamas, no matter their relative numbers… they are objectively ABNORMAL. They are not intrinsically inferior-quite the opposite is the entire point! Let us help our fellow men and women reclaim NORMALCY and their own inherent dignity by our good example, and by always radiating the joy that comes with the frequenting of the Sacraments.

I would point out that the priestly cassock is just about the sharpest masculine form of dress, and that real nuns literally wear wedding dresses and wedding veils every day of their lives. Why should we seculars not emulate this standard? Ugliness is NOT humility. Quite the opposite. Humility is knowing and acknowledging both what you are not (!!), but also what you ARE. Acknowledge your dignity as a rational intellect created in the image and likeness of God, and redeemed by His Most Precious Blood. Respect yourself and respect others. Get dressed. And I mean DRESSED. Every single day.

UPDATE: How could I have neglected to mention the impetus for married ladies to dress well… your husbands!!! Make them proud. Never take them for granted. Including around the house. Sweatpants have caused more divorces and male online self-abuse situations than any of us can imagine. Get up and get dressed, wives. You don’t have to be perfect – it’s the EFFORT. The charity is in the EFFORT.

I hope this helps.

Nurse Claire: “TUCKER, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.”

I have a few problems with this clip that recently aired on “Tucker Carlson Tonight”.

First, the suggestion that a fetus feels pain from 15-20 weeks is demonstrably false. In 1984, former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, then a pro-life convert, sought to show the world the brutality of abortion by airing actual video footage of a 12-week, ultrasound-guided abortion. In the video (which can be viewed here), the unborn child is clearly seen opening its mouth to scream, and recoiling from the abortionist’s instruments. My graduate school training in anesthesia taught that pain pathways as well as EEG brain waves were present in children as early as 9 weeks’ gestation, and probably sooner. So I take issue with the physician on Carlson’s show – his technical info isn’t exactly accurate.

And second: what is the point of this interview? Is the point to assert that murder is okay as long as it’s painless for the victim? Because if that’s the argument being made here, then I assure you the pro-aborts will push back with early-term “pain free” abortions using things like RU486, otherwise known as the abortion pill. And there are already abortionists out there touting their digoxin abortion methods, which involve injecting an unborn child with high-dose digoxin to stop the heart. The baby dies before the dismembering begins. These are sold to mothers as “painless”.

Out of charity, I will assume Tucker is airing this interview to offer some perspective on the brutality of abortion and the humanity of the unborn, who have been so thoroughly dehumanized for the last several decades. Most militant pro-abortionists do not care about the pain felt by unborn children. But, I do think there is a younger generation out there who truly are so intellectually lazy that they haven’t realized exactly what an abortion entails. Or they think of the fetus as some magical sleeping baby that neither perceives nor feels anything until it takes its first breath. So I’ll give Tucker credit for trying to start that conversation.

However, as pro-lifers, we must be vigilant not to fall into these arguments. Arbitrary conditions on abortion, such as “is the fetus feeling pain” or “is there a heartbeat” are logical fallacies – avoid these traps. In a conversation I had with Dr. Beep earlier today, he pointed out that sedating people to death is also “painless”, just like two-to-the-back-of-the-head of your political enemy. These atrocities are still murder regardless of how pain-free they may be for the victims.

And as for the heartbeat argument: life begins at conception. Full stop. The heartbeat laws enacted in several states are nice, but they do not acknowledge nor do they prevent the earliest abortions that are happening every day: abortifacient contraceptive pills, IUDs, and the “morning after” pill.

Let us celebrate the overturning of Roe while still being mindful that a tremendous uphill battle faces us. Our culture is a thoroughly pagan one, so we must articulate carefully that abortion is always wrong no matter the method or circumstances.

Nurse Claire

UPDATED: The Remnant Newspaper steps in it… again.

This laughably bad piece at the Remnant Newspaper has garnered 100% negative comments so far.

Mike, you need to get out from under Chris Ferrara’s thumb while you still have an audience and a subscriber base. Seriously. The vast majority of Trads in the English-speaking world either know or strongly suspect that Benedict never validly resigned. Because it’s obvious. You’re tinkling into the wind by berating pretty much everyone in your audience for simply acknowledging reality, and actually believing that it’s important, and wanting the situation rectified.

(It was pointed out to me that this is actually mandated in Canon Law itself:

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.”)

For the life of me, I simply cannot comprehend what these “It doesn’t matter who the Vicar of Christ on Earth is, or is not” people can possibly be thinking. Usually I can at least dimly see an opposing position’s rationale – wrong though it may be, I can still see what they’re thinking. With this, I got nothin’. If it makes no difference WHO the Pope is, then what possible purpose can the papacy serve at all? Don’t these people see that they are serving the Freemasonic agenda to a T?

I screen-capped this portion of the comment box on the piece. Very well-said here.

Happy Belated Birthday, St. John the Baptist!

Virgin and Child with St. John the Baptist, Sandro Botticelli, ARSH 1495

Virgin and Child with St. John the Baptist, Sandro Botticelli, ARSH 1495

Well, I can’t put it any better than this:

Botticelli’s painting suggests that the mission of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is to introduce all of us, as she did the little Baptist, into a reverent and tender intimacy with her Son. The Mother of God bends over each of us, her garments dyed red in the Blood that flowed on Calvary, the very Blood that won for us every spiritual joy. Where the Mother of God is present, there charity is poured out and there spiritual joys abound. Put yourself today in the position of the child John the Baptist. Ask the Blessed Virgin to let you embrace her Son and offer Him a kiss. Her Immaculate Heart will not refuse you this.